Learning Curve of a Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Program at a Second Institution.

W. Martin, Morgan Bonds, Laura Fischer, Katherine T Morris, Z. Sarwar, Kenneth Stewart, T. Garwe, A. Paniccia, R. Schulick, Ajay Jain, B. Edil
{"title":"Learning Curve of a Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Program at a Second Institution.","authors":"W. Martin, Morgan Bonds, Laura Fischer, Katherine T Morris, Z. Sarwar, Kenneth Stewart, T. Garwe, A. Paniccia, R. Schulick, Ajay Jain, B. Edil","doi":"10.1177/00031348241246163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nHistorically, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been performed via a laparotomy, but increasingly, laparoscopic and robotic platforms are being employed for PD. Laparoscopic PD has a steep surgeon specific learning curve and programmatic elements that must be optimized. These factors may limit a surgeon who is proficient at laparoscopic PD to develop a program at another institution. We hypothesize that the learning curve for a surgeon transferring a program to a second institution is shorter than the initial laparoscopic PD learning curve for the same surgeon.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic PD for any indication at the first institution (FI) from 2012 to 2017 and the second institution (SI) from 2018 to 2021 was conducted. Standard statistical analysis was performed. The learning curve was identified using one-sided CUSUM analysis of operative times.\n\n\nRESULT\nWe identified 110 participants, 90 from the FI and 20 from the SI. More patients at the FI were diagnosed with periampullary adenocarcinoma on final pathology compared to the SI (65.6% vs 40.0%, P = .0132). FI operative times stabilized after the 25th laparoscopic PD and SI operative times stabilized after the 5th operation. No statistically significant difference was identified in postoperative complications.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe learning curve and average operative time of an SI laparoscopic PD program was shorter than the initial learning curve for a single surgeon with comparable outcomes. This suggests that complex minimally invasive surgical programs can be safely transferred to another high-volume institution without significant loss of progress.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"40 11","pages":"31348241246163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241246163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Historically, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been performed via a laparotomy, but increasingly, laparoscopic and robotic platforms are being employed for PD. Laparoscopic PD has a steep surgeon specific learning curve and programmatic elements that must be optimized. These factors may limit a surgeon who is proficient at laparoscopic PD to develop a program at another institution. We hypothesize that the learning curve for a surgeon transferring a program to a second institution is shorter than the initial laparoscopic PD learning curve for the same surgeon. METHODS A retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic PD for any indication at the first institution (FI) from 2012 to 2017 and the second institution (SI) from 2018 to 2021 was conducted. Standard statistical analysis was performed. The learning curve was identified using one-sided CUSUM analysis of operative times. RESULT We identified 110 participants, 90 from the FI and 20 from the SI. More patients at the FI were diagnosed with periampullary adenocarcinoma on final pathology compared to the SI (65.6% vs 40.0%, P = .0132). FI operative times stabilized after the 25th laparoscopic PD and SI operative times stabilized after the 5th operation. No statistically significant difference was identified in postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS The learning curve and average operative time of an SI laparoscopic PD program was shorter than the initial learning curve for a single surgeon with comparable outcomes. This suggests that complex minimally invasive surgical programs can be safely transferred to another high-volume institution without significant loss of progress.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第二家医疗机构的腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术学习曲线。
背景历史上,胰十二指肠切除术(PD)都是通过开腹手术进行的,但现在越来越多的胰十二指肠切除术采用腹腔镜和机器人平台。腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术有一个陡峭的外科医生学习曲线和必须优化的程序要素。这些因素可能会限制精通腹腔镜腹腔镜手术的外科医生在其他机构开展项目。我们假设,外科医生将项目转移到第二家机构的学习曲线要短于同一外科医生最初的腹腔镜腹腔镜手术学习曲线。方法对2012年至2017年在第一家机构(FI)和2018年至2021年在第二家机构(SI)因任何适应症接受腹腔镜腹腔镜手术的患者进行了回顾性审查。进行了标准统计分析。通过对手术时间进行单侧 CUSUM 分析,确定了学习曲线。结果我们确定了 110 名参与者,其中 90 人来自 FI,20 人来自 SI。与SI相比,FI有更多患者最终病理诊断为胰腺周围腺癌(65.6% vs 40.0%,P = .0132)。FI手术时间在第25次腹腔镜PD手术后趋于稳定,SI手术时间在第5次手术后趋于稳定。结论SI腹腔镜PD项目的学习曲线和平均手术时间短于单个外科医生的初始学习曲线,但结果相当。这表明,复杂的微创手术项目可以安全地转移到另一个高产量机构,而不会造成重大的进展损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1