Andre L Montagnini1, Bård I Røsok2, Horacio J Asbun3, Jeffrey Barkun4, Marc G Besselink5, Ugo Boggi6, Kevin C P Conlon7, Abe Fingerhut8, Ho-Seong Han9, Paul D Hansen10, Melissa E Hogg11, Michael L Kendrick12, Chinnusamy Palanivelu13, Shailesh V Shrikhande14, Go Wakabayashi15, Herbert Zeh11, Charles M Vollmer16, David A Kooby17. 1. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: almontag@uol.com.br. 2. University of Oslo University, Oslo, Norway. 3. Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 7. The University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 8. University Hospital of Graz, Graz, Austria. 9. Seoul National University, SeongNam si, Korea. 10. Portland Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR, USA. 11. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 12. The Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 13. GEM Hospital & Research Center, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 14. Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. 15. Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan. 16. The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 17. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. METHODS: After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. RESULTS: A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. METHODS: After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. RESULTS: A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.
Authors: Gian Luca Baiocchi; Edoardo Rosso; Andrea Celotti; Giuseppe Zimmiti; Alberto Manzoni; Marco Garatti; Guido Tiberio; Nazario Portolani Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2018-02-28
Authors: Riccardo Casadei; Carlo Ingaldi; Claudio Ricci; Emilio De Raffele; Laura Alberici; Francesco Minni Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 2.895
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