Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study
- PMID: 35762617
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005539
Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study
Abstract
Objective: Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis.
Background: Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain.
Methods: This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts.
Results: A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases.
Conclusion: This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Pratt W, Maithel S, Vanounou T, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1264–1278.
-
- Gough BL, Levi S, Sabesan A, et al. Complex distal pancreatectomy outcomes performed at a single institution. Surg Oncol. 2018;27:428–432.
-
- Roussel E, Clément G, Lenne X, et al. Is centralization needed for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy? Pancreas. 2019;48:1188–1194.
-
- Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery. 2015;157:45–55.
-
- Chen K, Pan Y, Huang Cj, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:382.