BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique challenge to surgical residency programs. Due to the restrictions recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other organizations, the educational landscape for surgical residents is rapidly changing. In addition, the time course of these changes is undefined. METHODS: We attempt to define the scope of the problem of maintaining surgical resident education while maintaining the safety of residents, educators, and patients. Within the basic framework of limiting in-person gatherings, postponing or canceling elective operations in hospitals, and limiting rotations between sites, we propose innovative solutions to maintain rigorous education. RESULTS: We propose several innovative solutions including the flipped classroom model, online practice questions, teleconferencing in place of in-person lectures, involving residents in telemedicine clinics, procedural simulation, and the facilitated use of surgical videos. Although there is no substitute for hands-on learning through operative experience and direct patient care, these may be ways to mitigate the loss of learning exposure during this time. CONCLUSIONS: These innovative solutions utilizing technology may help to bridge the educational gap for surgical residents during this unprecedented circumstance. The support of national organizations may be beneficial in maintaining rigorous surgical education.

There was a 63% response rate (n = 91/145). Of respondent program directors, 21% felt that new fellows arrived unprepared for the operating room, 38% demonstrated lack of patient ownership, 30% could not independently perform a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and 66% were deemed unable to operate for 30 unsupervised minutes of a major procedure. With regard to laparoscopic skills, 30% could not atraumatically manipulate tissue, 26% could not recognize anatomical planes, and 56% could not suture. Furthermore, 28% of fellows were not familiar with therapeutic options and 24% were unable to recognize early signs of complications. Finally, it was felt that the majority of new fellows were unable to conceive, design, and conduct research/academic projects. Thematic clustering of qualitative data revealed deficits in domains of operative autonomy, progressive responsibility, longitudinal follow-up, and scholarly focus after general surgery education.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

IMPORTANCE Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure that captures the most desirable surgical outcomes as a single indicator, yet to date TO has not been defined and assessed in the field of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR).OBJECTIVE To obtain international agreement on the definition of TO in liver surgery (TOLS) and to assess the incidence of TO in LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter database using a propensity-score matched analysis.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all liver diseases between January 2011 and October 2019 were analyzed using a large international multicenter liver surgical database. An international survey was conducted among all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) to reach agreement on the definition of TOLS. The rate of TOLS was assessed for LLR and OLR before and after propensity-score matching. Factors associated with achieving TOLS were investigated.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Textbook outcome, with TOLS defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents of grade 2 or higher, postoperative bile leak grade B or C, severe postoperative complications, readmission within 30 days after discharge, in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin.RESULTS A total of 8188 patients (4559 LLR; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]; 2529 were male [55.8%] and 3629 OLR; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 56-71 years]; 2204 were male [60.7%]) were included in the analysis of whom 69.1% achieved TOLS; 74.8% for LLR and 61.9% for OLR (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III, previous abdominal surgery, histological diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases (odds ratio [OR], 0.656 [95% CI, 0.457-0.940]; P = .02), cholangiocarcinoma, non-CRLM, a tumor size of 30 mm or more, minor resection of posterior/superior segments (OR, 0.716 [95% CI, 0.577-0.887]; P = .002), anatomically major resection (OR, 0.579 [95% CI, 0.418-0.803]; P = .001), and nonanatomical resection (OR, 0.612 [95% CI, 0.476-0.788]; P < .001) were associated with a worse TOLS rate after LLR. For OLR, only histological diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (OR, 0.360 [95% CI, 0.214-0.607]; P < .001) and a tumor size of 30 mm or more (30-50 mm = OR, 0.718 [95% CI, 0.565-0.911]; P = .01; 50.1-100 mm = OR, 0.729 [95% CI, 0.554-0.960]; P = .02; >10 cm = OR, 0.550 [95% CI, 0.366-0.826]; P = .004) were associated with a worse TOLS rate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this multicenter study, TOLS was found to be a useful tool for assessing patient-level hospital performance and may have utility in optimizing patient outcomes after LLR and OLR.