Affiliation: | 1. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil;2. University of Oslo University, Oslo, Norway;3. Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA;4. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada;5. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;6. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy;7. The University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland;8. University Hospital of Graz, Graz, Austria;9. Seoul National University, SeongNam si, Korea;10. Portland Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR, USA;11. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;12. The Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA;13. GEM Hospital & Research Center, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India;14. Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India;15. Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan;16. The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA;17. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA |
Abstract: | BackgroundThere 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.MethodsAfter 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.ResultsA 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”)ConclusionsThe 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. |