4.6 Article

Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors: a learning curve analysis

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07684-4

Keywords

Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Laparoscopy; Learning curve

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzed a total of 171 patients who underwent LPDs and found that the learning curve can be divided into three phases: initial learning period, technical competence period, and challenging period, requiring 40 and 100 cases respectively to achieve the corresponding levels of expertise.
Background With continued technical advances in surgical instruments and growing expertise, many surgeons have safely performed laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomies (LPDs) with good results, and the laparoscopic approach is being performed more frequently. However, this complex procedure requires a relatively long training period to ensure technical competence. The present study aimed to analyze the learning curve for LPD. Methods From September 2012 to May 2019, LPDs were performed for 171 patients at the Yonsei University Severance Hospital by a single surgeon. We retrospectively analyzed the demographic and surgical outcomes. The learning curve for LPD was evaluated using both the cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) methods. All variables among the learning curve phases were compared. Results Based on the CUSUM and the RA-CUSUM analyses, the learning curve for LPD was grouped into three phases: phase I was the initial learning period (cases 1-40), phase II represented the technical competence period (cases 41-100), and phase III was regarded as the challenging period (cases 101-171). Conclusions According to the learning curve analysis, 40 cases are required to achieve technical competence in LPD and 100 cases are required to address highly challenging cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available