Showing papers by "Jeffrey Barkun published in 2019"
University of Southampton1, Mayo Clinic2, McGill University3, University of Pisa4, Trinity College, Dublin5, University of Amsterdam6, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital7, University of São Paulo8, Oslo University Hospital9, University of Pittsburgh10, University of Pennsylvania11, Emory University12
TL;DR: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment.
Abstract: Background The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. Methods An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. Results The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12–40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10–50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4–40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. Discussion This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.
87 citations
TL;DR: It is found that Anali scores, determined from MRC, were associated with outcomes of patients with PSC, and these scores might be used as prognostic factors.
41 citations
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that even in research published in high-quality surgical journals, several studies report their PS methodology inadequately, and the inadequate conduct of PS analysis may impact a study's conclusion.
Abstract: Background Propensity score (PS) analysis is a statistical method commonly used in observational trials to account for confounding. Improper use of PS analysis can bias the effect estimate. The aim of this study is to review the use and reporting of PS methods in high-impact surgical journals with a focus on propensity score matching (PSM). Study Design The 10 surgical journals with the highest impact factors were searched to identify studies using PS analysis from January 1, 2016 to December 14, 2018. We selected evaluation criteria for the conduct of PS analysis based on previous reports. Two authors systematically appraised the quality of reporting of PS analyses. Univariate and multivariate regression was performed to determine the relationship between appropriate use of PSM and study conclusion. Results Three hundred and three studies using PS analysis were included. Ninety-one percent (n = 275) of studies included the covariates used to generate the PS and 79% (n = 239) included the type of regression model used. Ninety percent (n = 272) of studies did not justify the covariates included in their PS. Eighty-four percent of studies used PSM (n = 254), with 48% (n = 123) failing to assess covariate balance between groups. We found that justification of the selection of covariates included in the PS and the characterization of unmatched patients were both associated with lower odds of the study finding a significant result (odds ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.87; p = 0.02 and odds ratio 0.35; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; p = 0.007, respectively, at multivariate logistic regression). Conclusions This study demonstrates that even in research published in high-quality surgical journals, several studies report their PS methodology inadequately. The inadequate conduct of PS analysis can impact a study's conclusion.
29 citations
TL;DR: The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction.
Abstract: Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.
16 citations