Objective: The aim of this study was to establish clinically relevant outcome benchmark values using criteria for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric venous resection (PVR) from a low-risk cohort managed in high-volume centers. Summary Background Data: PD with PVR is regarded as the standard of care in patients with cancer involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. There are, however, no benchmark outcome indicators for this population which hampers comparisons of patients undergoing PD with and without PVR resection. Methods: This multicenter study analyzed patients undergoing PD with any type of PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. Nineteen outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of the centers (NCT04053998). Results: Out of 1462 patients with PD and PVR, 840 (58%) formed the benchmark cohort, with a mean age was 64 (SD11) years, 413 (49%) were females. Benchmark cutoffs, among others, were calculated as follows: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery): ≤14%; in-hospital mortality rate: ≤4%; major complication rate Grade≥3 and the CCI up to 6 months postoperatively: ≤36% and ≤26, respectively; portal vein thrombosis rate: ≤14% and 5-year survival for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: ≥9%. Conclusion: These novel benchmark cutoffs targeting surgical performance, morbidity, mortality, and oncological parameters show relatively inferior results in patients undergoing vascular resection because of involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. These benchmark values however can be used to conclusively assess the results of different centers or surgeons operating on this high-risk group.

The objective was to systematically review the literature to identify and grade tools used for the end point assessment of procedural skills (e.g., phlebotomy, IV cannulation, suturing) competence in medical students prior to certification. The authors searched eight bibliographic databases electronically – ERIC, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Psychinfo, PsychLIT, EBM Reviews and the Cochrane databases. Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature to identify procedural assessment tools used specifically for assessing medical students within the PRISMA framework, the inclusion/exclusion criteria and search period. Papers on OSATS and DOPS were excluded as they focused on post-registration assessment and clinical rather than simulated competence. Of 659 abstracted articles 56 identified procedural assessment tools. Only 11 specifically assessed medical students. The final 11 studies consisted of 1 randomised controlled trial, 4 comparative and 6 descriptive studies yielding 12 heterogeneous procedural assessment tools for analysis. Seven tools addressed four discrete pre-certification skills, basic suture (3), airway management (2), nasogastric tube insertion (1) and intravenous cannulation (1). One tool used a generic assessment of procedural skills. Two tools focused on postgraduate laparoscopic skills and one on osteopathic students and thus were not included in this review. The levels of evidence are low with regard to reliability – κ = 0.65–0.71 and minimum validity is achieved – face and content. In conclusion, there are no tools designed specifically to assess competence of procedural skills in a final certification examination. There is a need to develop standardised tools with proven reliability and validity for assessment of procedural skills competence at the end of medical training. Medicine graduates must have comparable levels of procedural skills acquisition entering the clinical workforce irrespective of the country of training.

The onset of obesity occurs as a result of an imbalance between nutrient consumption/absorption and energy expenditure. Gastrointestinal (GI) motility plays a critical role in the rate of consumption of foods, digestion, and absorption of nutrients. Various segments of the GI tract coordinate in a complex yet precise way, to control the process of food consumption, digestion, and absorption of nutrients. GI motility not only regulates the rates at which nutrients are processed and absorbed in the gut, but also, via mechanical and neurohormonal methods, participates in the control of appetite and satiety. Altered GI motility has frequently been observed in obese patients, the significance of which is incompletely understood. However, these alterations can be considered as potential contributing factors in the development and maintenance of obesity and changed eating behavior. Therapies aimed at regulating or counteracting the observed changes in GI motility are being actively explored and applied clinically in the management of obese patients.