Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Proposal of a revised 3-tier "2 mm" risk classification model for postoperative pancreatic fistula in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Pengfei, Menso Julia E, Zhang Shuang, McPhaul Thomas, Zhao Fuqiang, Huang Liling, Chen Kai, Besselink Marc G, He Jin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The recent International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) was developed based on data from open and mixed minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The ISGPS risk classification model has not been validated specifically for POPF after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD).
METHODS: We calculated the rate of POPF (ISGPS 2016 definition, grade B/C) by analyzing consecutive patients after RPD by surgeons after their learning curves (80 RPDs per surgeon). The validation of the ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier risk classification was conducted using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
RESULTS: From 2019 to 2023, 187 patients after RPD were included. Neither the ISGPS 4-tier nor the simplified 3-tier classification model showed robust discrimination (AUC: 0.696 and 0.685, respectively). Moreover, both risk classifications failed to differentiate the rates of POPF and major complications among subgroups. Multivariate analysis suggested that soft pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm were independent risk factors for POPF after RPD. After adjusting the duct size's cutoff from 3 to 2 mm, the revised 4-tier "2 mm" classification model showed no significant difference between risk categories B and C (6.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 0.063). The revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model stratified patients into A (n = 54), B (n = 68), and C (n = 65) groups, with corresponding POPF rates of 0.0%, 8.8%, and 23.1% (P < 0.001), and major complication rates of 5.6, 14.7, and 24.6% (P = 0.014), respectively. Compared to the simplified 3-tier classification model, the revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model showed improved discrimination (AUC: 0.753 vs. 0.685, P = 0.034) and clinical utility.
CONCLUSIONS: The current ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier classification models lacked sufficient discrimination in patients after RPD. We propose a revised 3-tier "2 mm" risk classification model for RPD with a robust discrimination, which requires further international validation with prospectively obtained data.
METHODS: We calculated the rate of POPF (ISGPS 2016 definition, grade B/C) by analyzing consecutive patients after RPD by surgeons after their learning curves (80 RPDs per surgeon). The validation of the ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier risk classification was conducted using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
RESULTS: From 2019 to 2023, 187 patients after RPD were included. Neither the ISGPS 4-tier nor the simplified 3-tier classification model showed robust discrimination (AUC: 0.696 and 0.685, respectively). Moreover, both risk classifications failed to differentiate the rates of POPF and major complications among subgroups. Multivariate analysis suggested that soft pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm were independent risk factors for POPF after RPD. After adjusting the duct size's cutoff from 3 to 2 mm, the revised 4-tier "2 mm" classification model showed no significant difference between risk categories B and C (6.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 0.063). The revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model stratified patients into A (n = 54), B (n = 68), and C (n = 65) groups, with corresponding POPF rates of 0.0%, 8.8%, and 23.1% (P < 0.001), and major complication rates of 5.6, 14.7, and 24.6% (P = 0.014), respectively. Compared to the simplified 3-tier classification model, the revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model showed improved discrimination (AUC: 0.753 vs. 0.685, P = 0.034) and clinical utility.
CONCLUSIONS: The current ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier classification models lacked sufficient discrimination in patients after RPD. We propose a revised 3-tier "2 mm" risk classification model for RPD with a robust discrimination, which requires further international validation with prospectively obtained data.