Background There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. Methods After formal literature review for “minimally invasive pancreatic surgery” term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. Results A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine “approach + resection” (e.g. “laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine “first approach + resection” with “second approach + reconstruction” (e.g. “laparoscopic central pancreatectomy” with “open pancreaticojejunostomy”) and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is “first approach” + “converted to” + “second approach” + “resection” (e.g. “robot-assisted” “converted to open” “pancreatoduodenectomy”) Conclusions The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

Boggi, Ugo;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Background There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. Methods After formal literature review for “minimally invasive pancreatic surgery” term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. Results A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine “approach + resection” (e.g. “laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine “first approach + resection” with “second approach + reconstruction” (e.g. “laparoscopic central pancreatectomy” with “open pancreaticojejunostomy”) and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is “first approach” + “converted to” + “second approach” + “resection” (e.g. “robot-assisted” “converted to open” “pancreatoduodenectomy”) Conclusions The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.
2017
Montagnini, Andre L.; Rã¸sok, BÃ¥rd I.; Asbun, Horacio J.; Barkun, Jeffrey; Besselink, Marc G.; Boggi, Ugo; Conlon, Kevin C. P.; Fingerhut, Abe; Han, Ho-Seong; Hansen, Paul D.; Hogg, Melissa E.; Kendrick, Michael L.; Palanivelu, Chinnusamy; Shrikhande, Shailesh V.; Wakabayashi, Go; Zeh, Herbert; Vollmer, Charles M.; Kooby, David A.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/889861
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 12
  • Scopus 34
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 33
social impact