Radiofrequency-assisted transection of the pancreas vs stapler in distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched cohort analysis.

To demonstrate the efficacy of radiofrequency for pancreatic stump closure in reducing the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in distal pancreatectomy (DP) compared with mechanical transection methods. Despite all the different techniques of pancreatic stump closure proposed for DP, best practice for avoiding POPF remains an unresolved issue, with an incidence of up to 30% regardless of center volume or surgical expertise. DP was performed in a cohort of patients by applying radiofrequency to stump closure (RF Group) and compared with mechanical closure (Control Group). A propensity score (PS) matched cohort study was carried out to minimize bias from nonrandomized treatment assignment. Cohorts were matched by PS accounting for factors significantly associated with either undergoing RF transection or mechanical closure through logistic regression analysis. The primary end-point was the incidence of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF). Of 89 patients included in the whole cohort, 13 case patients from the RF-Group were 1:1 matched to 13 control patients. In both the first independent analysis of unmatched data and subsequent adjustment to the overall propensity score-matched cohort, a higher rate of CR-POPF in the Control Group compared with the RF-Group was detected (25.4% vs 5.3%, p = 0.049 and 53.8% vs 0%; p = 0.016 respectively). The RF Group showed better outcomes in terms of readmission rate (46.2% vs 0%, p = 0.031). No significant differences were observed in terms of mortality, major complications (30.8% vs 0%, p = 0.063) or length of hospital stay (5.7 vs 5.2 days, p = 0.89). Findings suggest that the RF-assisted technique is more efficacious in reducing CR-POPF than mechanical pancreatic stump closure.

Evaluation of the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy by CUSUM analyses. Cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) remains an extremely demanding surgery. The purpose of this study was to describe the learning curve required for its safe implementation. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients undergoing LPD were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was clustered into 4 groups: A, B and C (initial phase, n = 10 each) and D (consolidation phase, n = 20). Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was applied to operative time, conversion rate and severe postoperative complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among groups and phases concerning specific and general postoperative complications, oncological outcomes or mortality. The conversion rate significantly reduced from 90% (9) in Group A to 40% (4) in Group C (p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in the consolidation phase (median of 506 vs 437 min, p < 0.01). Conversely, hospital stays were shorter during the consolidation phase (8 vs 15 days, p < 0.01). CUSUM analysis identified 20-25cases as being enough to complete the learning curve if operative time and severe complications are analysed, while 40 cases would be needed for considering the conversion rate. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve in LPD can be completed after 20-25 procedures. This information will help to design programmes for introducing new surgeons to this technique.