Literature DB >> 27329105

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy combined with a novel self-assessment system and feedback discussion: a phase 1 surgical trial following the IDEAL guidelines.

Yosuke Inoue1, Akio Saiura2, Takafumi Sato3, Takeaki Ishizawa1, Junichi Arita4, Yu Takahashi1, Naoki Hiki1, Takeshi Sano1, Toshiharu Yamaguchi1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard yet complicated procedure for periampullary tumors. To introduce a laparoscopic approach for PD (Lap-PD), a robust and objective assessment system to evaluate the quality of this approach is needed. We describe a phase 1 surgical trial of Lap-PD (Registration ID: UMIN000015328) as a triad of surgery, novel self-assessment system, and feedback discussion implementing the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) guidelines.
METHODS: This was a surgical phase I trial (corresponding to IDEAL stage 1) approved by the Ethics Committee of our hospital. The resection sequence was divided into 10 parts that were assessed and classified into one of four grades of achievement. Evaluation of each part was then integrated, and the whole Lap-PD was categorized into three grades of achievement. We set discontinuance criteria based on historical surgical outcome of open PD. The previous case was discussed before each new case, and measures to overcome problems were implemented. Five patients underwent Lap-PD.
RESULTS: All Lap-PDs were completed laparoscopically and reconstructed via mini-laparotomy. One patient suffered recurrent ileus requiring re-laparotomy to resolve a severe adhesion. After 1 year, no patient suffered disease recurrence or complication. Based on the self-assessment system, four Lap-PDs were successful, whereas one was rated as feasible owing to bleeding requiring conversion of resection sequence.
CONCLUSIONS: Our triad system for evaluating Lap-PD could be a useful tool for the safe introduction and maintenance of Lap-PD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic surgery; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Self-assessment system; Superior mesenteric artery

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27329105     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1466-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  36 in total

Review 1.  Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands.

Authors:  N Tjarda van Heek; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Rob J Scholten; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Camilo Correa-Gallego; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Isabel Sulimanoff; Sarah Fisher; Eduardo F Viñuela; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Minimally invasive surgical approach compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the feasibility and safety.

Authors:  Purun Lei; Bo Wei; Weiping Guo; Hongbo Wei
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.719

5.  Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System.

Authors:  Horacio J Asbun; John A Stauffer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented?

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Jason A Breaux; Jennifer L Steel; Steven J Hughes
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Chang Moo Kang; Sung Hwan Lee; Myung Jae Chung; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 7.027

8.  Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: evolution of a novel procedure utilizing the IDEAL guidelines (IDEAL phase 0 and 1).

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ronney Abaza; Akshay Sood; Rajesh Ahlawat; Khurshid R Ghani; Wooju Jeong; Vijay Kher; Ramesh K Kumar; Mahendra Bhandari
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Effect of centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on nationwide hospital mortality and length of stay.

Authors:  B Topal; S Van de Sande; S Fieuws; F Penninckx
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches?

Authors:  Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Major; Michał Wysocki; Tomasz Stefura; Andrzej Budzyński
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set.

Authors:  R C Macefield; N Wilson; C Hoffmann; J M Blazeby; A G K McNair; K N L Avery; S Potter
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-10-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.