Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 264, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 482-489

  Hogg, Melissa E ^a   Zenati, Mazen ^b   Novak, Stephanie ^a   Chen, Yong ^c   Jun, Yan ^d   Steve, Jennifer ^a   Kowalsky, Stacy J ^a   Bartlett, David L ^a   Zureikat, Amer H ^a   Zeh, Herbert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c CHONGQING MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

OSATS; Pancreatic fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Robotic assisted surgery; Surgical proficiency

Indexed keywords

AGED; BRAGA SCORE; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; FISTULA RISK SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBJECTIVE STRUCTURED ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL SKILLS SCORE; PANCREAS FISTULA; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; PANCREATICOJEJUNOSTOMY; PERFORMANCE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGEON; SURGICAL RISK; FORECASTING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; PANCREATIC FISTULA; PROCEDURES; ROBOTICS; STANDARDS;

AGED; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MALE; PANCREATIC FISTULA; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84978705147     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001862     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1434-1442.
2. Van Buren G 2nd, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605-612.
3. Allen PJ. Pasireotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:875-876.
4. Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Wu MF, et al. Assessment of the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2012;203:684-690.
5. Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, et al. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:634-640.
6. Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE, et al. The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery. 2007;141:694-701.
7. Harnoss JC, Ulrich AB, Harnoss JM, et al. Use and results of consensus definitions in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. 2014;155:47-57.
8. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8-13.
9. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761-768.
10. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20-25.
11. Yeo CJ. Pancreatic surgery 101: drain, no drain, early drain removal, or late drain removal. What are the data? Where do we go from here? Ann Surg. 2010;252:215-216.
12. Denbo JW, Orr WS, Zarzaur BL, et al. Toward defining grade C pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome. HPB. 2012;14:589-593.
13. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1-14.
14. Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB, et al. Clinical risk score to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: independent external validation for open and laparoscopic approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:689-698.
15. McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, et al. Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg. 2015. Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print].
16. PrattW, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Optimal surgical performance attenuates physiologic risk in high-acuity operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:717-730.
17. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:798-809.
18. Braga M, Capretti G, Pecorelli N, et al. A prognostic score to predict major complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2011;254:702-707 [discussion 707-708].
19. Polanco PM, Zenati MS, Hogg ME, et al. An analysis of risk factors for pancreatic fistula after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes from a consecutive series of standardized pancreatic reconstructions. Surg Endos. 2016;30:1523-1529.
20. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, et al. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554-559 [discussion 559-562].
21. Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:416-422.
22. Grobmyer SR, Kooby D, Blumgart LH, et al. Novel pancreaticojejunostomy with a low rate of anastomotic failure-related complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:54-59.
23. Grobmyer SR, Kooby DA, Hochwald SN, et al. Blumgart anastomosis for pancreaticojejunostomy minimizes severe complications after pancreatic head resection (Br J Surg 2009; 96: 741-750). Br J Surg. 2010;97:134 [author reply 134-135].
24. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84:273-278.
25. Niitsu H, Hirabayashi N, Yoshimitsu M, et al. Using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) global rating scale to evaluate the skills of surgical trainees in the operating room. Surg Today. 2013;43:271-275.
26. Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, et al. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207-214.
27. Zevin B, Bonrath EM, Aggarwal R, et al. Development, feasibility, validity, and reliability of a scale for objective assessment of operative performance in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:955-965 [e958; quiz 1029-1031, 1033].
28. Dimick JB, Varban OA. Surgical video analysis: an emerging tool for improving surgeon performance. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24:490-491.
29. Hadley C, Lam SK, Briceno V, et al. Use of a formal assessment instrument for evaluation of resident operative skills in pediatric neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015. Aug 28:1-8. [Epub ahead of print].
30. Abdelsattar JM, Pandian TK, Finnesgard EJ, et al. Do you see what I see? How we use video as an adjunct to general surgery resident education. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:e145-e150.
31. Herrera-Almario GE, Kirk K, Guerrero VT, et al. The effect of video review of resident laparoscopic surgical skills measured by self-and external assessment. Am J Surg. 2016;211:315-320.
32. Sarkiss CA, Philemond S, Lee J, et al. Neurosurgical skills assessment: measuring technical proficiency in neurosurgery residents through intraoperative video evaluations. World Neurosurg. 2016;89:1-8.
33. Ghani KR, Miller DC, Linsell S, et al. Measuring to improve: peer and crowdsourced assessments of technical skill with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:547-550.
34. Lendvay TS, White L, Kowalewski T. Crowdsourcing to assess surgical skill. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:1086-1087.
35. Chen C, White L, Kowalewski T, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res. 2014;187:65-71.
36. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:988-994.
37. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Suppl):S70-81.