Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a challenging procedure. We investigated the learning curve (LC) for LPD with a multidimensional analysis.
Data of patients undergoing LPD between 2017 and 2021, operated by a single surgeon, were considered. A multidimensional assessment of the LC was performed through Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) and Risk-Adjusted (RA)-CUSUM analysis.
113 patients were selected. Rates of conversion, overall postoperative complication, severe complication and mortality were 4%, 53%, 29% and 4%, respectively. RA-CUSUM analysis showed a LC with three phases: competency (procedures 1–51), proficiency (procedures 52–94), and mastery (after procedure 94). Operative time was lower in both phase two (588.17 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.001) and three (534.72 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.004) with respect to phase one. Severe complication rate was lower in mastery as compared to competency phase (42% vs 6%, p = 0.005). During mastery phase a greater number of lymph nodes was harvested in comparison to proficiency phase.
According to our LC analysis, 52 procedures were required to achieve technical competency in LPD. Mastery, which corresponded to a reduction in operative time and surgical failures, was acquired after 94 procedures.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to HPB
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Understanding hospital readmissions after pancreaticoduodenectomy: can we prevent them?: a 10-year contemporary experience with 1,173 patients at the Massachusetts general hospital.J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18 (discussion 144–5): 137-144
- Superior mesenteric-portal vein resection during laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 1488-1495
- Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy.Surg Endosc. 1994; 8: 408-410https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00642443
- Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a descriptive and comparative review.Chin J Cancer Res. 2015; 27: 368-375
- Totally laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021; 47: 674-680https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.10.036
- Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European propensity score matched study.Ann Surg. 2020; 271: 356-363
- Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review.Int J Surg. 2022; 101: 106633
- Learning curves in open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatic surgery.Ann Surg Open. 2022; 3: e111https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000111
- International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017.Pancreatology. 2018; 18: 2-11https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2017.11.011
- Totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison between early and late phase of an initial single-center learning curve.Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021; 12: 688-698
- Totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technical notes.Chirurgia. 2020; 115: 385-393
- Novel biodegradable internal stent as a mitigation strategy in high-risk pancreaticojejunostomy: technical notes and preliminary results.Surg Today. 2022; 52: 1115-1119
- A Prospectively Validated Clinical Risk Score Accurately Predicts Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy.J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 216: 1-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002
- The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications.Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 187-196https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2
- The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years after.Surgery. 2017; 161: 584-591https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
- Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS).Surgery. 2007; 142: 761-768https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005
- Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)–An international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition.Surgery. 2007; 142: 20-25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001
- Multidimensional evaluation of the learning curve for laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for right colon cancer: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation analysis.Colorectal Dis. 2022; 24: 577-586
- Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the international study group on pancreatic surgery (ISGPS).Surgery. 2014; 156: 591-600https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.016
- Outcomes after minimally invasive versus open total pancreatectomy: a pan-European propensity score matched study.Ann Surg. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005075
- The clinical outcome of surgical therapy study group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N engl J med 2004;350:2050-2059.Journal de Chirurgie 141. 2004; 257https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-7697(04)95606-2
- Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (KLASS-02-RCT).Ann Surg. 2019; 270: 983-991
- Propensity score analysis of outcomes following laparoscopic or open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.Br J Surg. 2016; 103: 871-880
- Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial.Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 4: 199-207
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial.Ann Surg. 2018; 268: 731-739
- Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours.Br J Surg. 2017; 104: 1443-1450
- Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference.Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 2023-2041https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5414-3
- Short-term clinical outcomes for 100 consecutive cases of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: improvement with surgical experience.Surg Endosc. 2013; 27: 95-103
- Learning curve and surgical factors influencing the surgical outcomes during the initial experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018; 25: 498-507
- Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 4014-4019
- Outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2).Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 344-350https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002563
- Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review.Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02470-3
- A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity.Surg Endosc. 2019; 33: 353-365
- Monitoring Surgical Performance Using Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum Charts.Biostatistics. 2000; 1: 441-452https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/1.4.441
- Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors: a learning curve analysis.Surg Endosc. 2021; 35: 2636-2644
- Evaluation of a single surgeon's learning curve of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk-adjusted cumulative summation analysis.Surg Endosc. 2021; 35: 2870-2878https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07724-z
- The miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection.Ann Surg. 2020; 271: 1-14
- Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review.HPB. 2020; 22: 637-648
Published online: February 20, 2023
Accepted: February 10, 2023
Received: July 28, 2022
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2023 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.