Jony van Hilst1, Thijs de Rooij1, Mohammed Abu Hilal2, Horacio J Asbun3, Jeffrey Barkun4, Uggo Boggi5, Olivier R Busch1, Kevin C P Conlon6, Marcel G Dijkgraaf7, Ho-Seong Han8, Paul D Hansen9, Michael L Kendrick10, Andre L Montagnini11, Chinnusamy Palanivelu12, Bård I Røsok13, Shailesh V Shrikhande14, Go Wakabayashi15, Herbert J Zeh16, Charles M Vollmer17, David A Kooby18, Marc G H Besselink19. 1. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, UK. 3. Department of Surgery, The Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 6. Department of Surgery, The University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 7. Clinical Research Unit, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, SeongNam si, Korea. 9. Department of Surgery, Portland Providence Cancer Center, Portland, Orlando, USA. 10. Department of Surgery, The Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 11. Department of Surgery, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 12. Department of Surgery, GEM Hospital & Research Center, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 13. Department of Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 14. Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. 15. Department of Surgery, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan. 16. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 17. Department of Surgery, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 18. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 19. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.besselink@amc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.
Authors: Matteo De Pastena; Jony van Hilst; Thijs de Rooij; Olivier R Busch; Michael F Gerhards; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-06-17 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Carl R Schmidt; Britney R Harris; Kelsey A Musgrove; Pavan Rao; J Wallis Marsh; Alan A Thomay; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; Brian A Boone Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Jony van Hilst; Koop Bosscha; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Michael F Gerhards; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Jeroen Hagendoorn; Ignace H de Hingh; Tom M Karsten; Daan J Lips; Misha D Luyer; I Quintus Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; T C Khé Tran; Olivier R Busch; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: J van Hilst; E A Strating; T de Rooij; F Daams; S Festen; B Groot Koerkamp; J M Klaase; M Luyer; M G Dijkgraaf; M G Besselink Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Brian K Goh; Tze Yi Low; Ye Xin Koh; Ser Yee Lee; Jin-Yao Teo; Juinn Huar Kam; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Peng-Chung Cheow; Pierce K Chow; London L Ooi; Alexander Y Chung; Chung Yip Chan Journal: J Minim Access Surg Date: 2020 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.407