Search

Objective: The European Registries for Rare Endocrine Conditions (EuRRECa, eurreb.eu) includes an e-reporting registry (e-REC) used to perform surveillance of conditions within the European Reference Network (ERN) for rare endocrine conditions (Endo-ERN). The aim of this study was to report the experience of e-REC over the 3.5 years since its launch in 2018., Methods: Electronic reporting capturing new encounters of Endo-ERN conditions was performed monthly through a bespoke platform by clinicians registered to participate in e-REC from July 2018 to December 2021., Results: The number of centres reporting on e-REC increased to a total of 61 centres from 22 countries. A median of 29 (range 11, 45) paediatric and 32 (14, 51) adult centres had reported cases monthly. A total of 9715 and 4243 new cases were reported in adults (age ≥18 years) and children, respectively. In children, sex development conditions comprised 40% of all reported conditions and transgender cases were most frequently reported, comprising 58% of sex development conditions. The median number of sex development cases reported per centre per month was 0.6 (0, 38). Amongst adults, pituitary conditions comprised 44% of reported conditions and pituitary adenomas (69% of cases) were most commonly reported. The median number of pituitary cases reported per centre per month was 4 (0.4, 33)., Conclusions: e-REC has gained increasing acceptability over the last 3.5 years for capturing brief information on new encounters of rare conditions and shows wide variations in the rate of presentation of these conditions to centres within a reference network. Significance statement Endocrinology includes a very wide range of rare conditions and their occurrence is often difficult to measure. By using an electronic platform that allowed monthly reporting of new clinical encounters of several rare endocrine conditions within a defined network that consisted of several reference centres in Europe, the EuRRECa project shows that a programme of e-surveillance is feasible and acceptable. The data that have been collected by the e-reporting of rare endocrine conditions (e-REC) can allow the continuous monitoring of rare conditions and may be used for clinical benchmarking, designing new studies or recruiting to clinical trials.

Objective: To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively., Background: POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet., Methods: Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure., Results: Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85)., Conclusions: The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation., Background: Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking., Methods: A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit., Results: Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%., Conclusions: This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs)., Methods: Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others., Results: A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To quantify the nationwide impact of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) on major morbidity as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP)., Background: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated significant reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP compared with ODP, but was not powered to assess potential risk reductions in major morbidity., Methods: International cohort study using the American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) (88 centers; 2014-2016) to evaluate the association between surgical approach (MIDP vs ODP) and 30-day composite major morbidity (CMM; death or severe complications) with external model validation using Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group data (17 centers; 2005-2016). Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of nationwide MIDP rates between 0% and 100% on postoperative CMM at conversion rates between 0% and 25%, using estimated marginal effects. A sensitivity analysis tested the impact at various scenarios and patient populations., Results: Of 2921 ACS-NSQIP patients, 1562 (53%) underwent MIDP with 18% conversion, and 1359 (47%) underwent ODP. MIDP was independently associated with reduced CMM [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.60, P < 0.001], confirmed by external model validation (n = 637, P < 0.003). The association between rising MIDP implementation rates and falling postoperative morbidity was linear between 0% (all ODP) and 100% (all MIDP). The absolute risk reduction for CMM was 11% (95% CI 7.3%-15%) at observed conversion rates and improved to 14% (95% CI 11%-18%) as conversion approached 0%. Similar effects were seen across subgroups., Conclusion: This international study predicted a nationwide 11% risk reduction for CMM after MIDP versus ODP, which is likely to improve as conversion rates decrease. These findings confirm secondary outcomes of the recent LEOPARD RCT., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP., Methods/design: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively., Discussion: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Ovulation may lead to abdominal pain. It is well-known that ovulation can cause intra-abdominal bleeding. However, literature on hypovolemic shock due to an ovarian bleeding is scarce., Case Description: A 30-year-old woman visited the emergency room because of acute pain of the lower abdomen. Her skin was pale, her vital signs were normal and a pregnancy test was negative. At presentation, her blood pressure decreased to 87/50 mmHg. Therefore, intra-abdominal bleeding was suspected and the gynecologist was consulted. On ultrasound, intraperitoneal fluid was seen, so we proceeded to emergency laparoscopy. During surgery, we found a bleeding corpus luteum (corpus rubrum) leading to 2.5 L of free intra-abdominal blood. The bleeding was stopped intraoperatively., Conclusion: A bleeding corpus luteum can lead to hypovolemic shock. Ovarian bleeding should be considered in case of shock combined with lower abdominal pain, ultrasound should be performed promptly and the gynecologist has to be consulted.

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups., Results: A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups., Conclusion: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A recent systematic review recommends against the use of any of the current COVID-19 prediction models in clinical practice. To enable clinicians to appropriately profile and treat suspected COVID-19 patients at the emergency department (ED), externally validated models that predict poor outcome are desperately needed., Objective: Our aims were to identify predictors of poor outcome, defined as mortality or ICU admission within 30 days, in patients presenting to the ED with a clinical suspicion of COVID-19, and to develop and externally validate a prediction model for poor outcome., Methods: In this prospective, multi-center study, we enrolled suspected COVID-19 patients presenting at the EDs of two hospitals in the Netherlands. We used backward logistic regression to develop a prediction model. We used the area under the curve (AUC), Brier score and pseudo-R2 to assess model performance. The model was externally validated in an Italian cohort., Results: We included 1193 patients between March 12 and May 27 2020, of whom 196 (16.4%) had a poor outcome. We identified 10 predictors of poor outcome: current malignancy (OR 2.774; 95%CI 1.682-4.576), systolic blood pressure (OR 0.981; 95%CI 0.964-0.998), heart rate (OR 1.001; 95%CI 0.97-1.028), respiratory rate (OR 1.078; 95%CI 1.046-1.111), oxygen saturation (OR 0.899; 95%CI 0.850-0.952), body temperature (OR 0.505; 95%CI 0.359-0.710), serum urea (OR 1.404; 95%CI 1.198-1.645), C-reactive protein (OR 1.013; 95%CI 1.001-1.024), lactate dehydrogenase (OR 1.007; 95%CI 1.002-1.013) and SARS-CoV-2 PCR result (OR 2.456; 95%CI 1.526-3.953). The AUC was 0.86 (95%CI 0.83-0.89), with a Brier score of 0.32 and, and R2 of 0.41. The AUC in the external validation in 500 patients was 0.70 (95%CI 0.65-0.75)., Conclusion: The COVERED risk score showed excellent discriminatory ability, also in an external validation. It may aid clinical decision making, and improve triage at the ED in health care environments with high patient throughputs.

Background: The aim was to evaluate the various operative techniques and outcomes used to manage the pancreatic transection plane (or stump) during a left (distal) pancreatectomy and to develop expert consensus guidelines., Methods: Evidence-based, clinically relevant questions were discussed and then were circulated among members of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. After agreement on the questions and statements, voting in a 9-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of objective support for each., Results: Studies using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula including 16 randomized trials were reviewed to generate a series of statements set into 14 domains. There was strong consensus in the following statements: there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after left pancreatectomy between the handsewn and stapler techniques; a stapling technique could not be used in all cases of left pancreatectomy; the use of an energy-based tissue sealant or a chemical sealant device or combinations of these did not impact the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate; there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; and there are 1 or more clinically important, patient-related risk factors associated with the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate. There was weak or conditional agreement on the use of prophylactic somatostatin analogs, stents, stump closure, stump anastomosis, and the role of abdominal drains., Conclusion: Areas of strong consensus suggests a change in clinical practice and priority setting. Eight domains with lower agreement will require novel approaches and large multicenter studies to determine future key areas of practice., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The systemic inflammatory response seen after surgery seems to be related to postoperative complications. A reduction of the inflammatory response through minimally invasive surgery might therefore be the mechanism via which postoperative outcome could be improved. The aim of this study was to investigate if postoperative inflammatory markers differed between laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and if there was a relationship between inflammatory markers and the occurrence of postoperative complications., Methods: A side study of the multicenter randomized controlled LEOPARD-2 trial comparing LPD to OPD was performed. Area under the curve (AUC) for plasma inflammatory markers, including interleukin (IL-) 6, IL-8 and C reactive protein (CRP) levels, were determined during the first 96 postoperative hours and compared between LPD and OPD, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C., Results: Overall, 38 patients were included (18 LPD and 20 OPD). The median AUC of IL-6 was 627 (195-1378) after LPD vs. 338 (175-694)pg/mL after OPD, (p = 0.114). The AUC of IL-8 and CRP were comparable. IL-6 levels were higher in patients with a Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication (634[309-1489] vs. 297 [171-680], p = 0.034) and POPF grade B/C (994 [534-3265] vs. 334 [173-704], p = 0.003). In patients with a POPF grade B/C, IL-6 levels tended to be higher after LPD, as compared to OPD (3533[IQR 1133-3533] vs. 715[IQR 39-1658], p = 0.053)., Conclusion: LPD, as compared to OPD, did not reduce the postoperative inflammatory response. IL-6 levels were associated with postoperative complications and pancreatic fistula., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is currently unclear what the added value is of 3D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary surgery. 3D-laparoscopy could improve procedure time and/or surgical performance, for instance in demanding anastomoses such as pancreatico- and hepaticojejunostomy. The impact of 3D-laparoscopy could be negligible in more experienced surgeons., Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled cross-over trial including 20 expert laparoscopic surgeons and 20 surgical residents from 9 countries (Argentina, Estonia, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, UK, USA). All participants performed a pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and a hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) using 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on biotissue organ models according to the Pittsburgh method. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12-60) rating. Observers were blinded for 3D/2D and expertise., Results: A total of 40 participants completed 144 PJs and HJs. 3D-laparoscopy reduced the operative time with 15.5 min (95%CI 10.2-24.5 min), from 81.0 to 64.4 min, p = 0.001. This reduction was observed for both experts and residents (13.0 vs 22.2 min, intergroup significance p = 0.354). The OSATS improved with 5.1 points, SD ± 6.3, with 3D-laparoscopy, p = 0.001. This improvement was observed for both experts and residents (4.6 vs 5.6 points, p = 0.519). Of all participants, 37/39 participants stated to prefer 3D laparoscopy whereas 14/39 reported side effects. Minor side effects were reported by 10/39 participants whereas 2/39 participants reported severe side effects (both severe eye strain)., Conclusion: 3D-laparoscopy, as compared to 2D-laparoscopy, reduced the operative time and improved surgical performance for PJ and HJ anastomoses in both experts and residents with mostly minor side effects., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPD-OR) has been suggested to lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula reported after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with laparoscopic reconstruction (LPD). Propensity score matched studies are, lacking., Methods: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study including patients from 7 Dutch centers between 2014-2018. Patients undergoing LPD-OR were matched LPD patients in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores. Main outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) grade B/C and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications., Results: A total of 172 patients were included, involving the first procedure for all centers. All 56 patients after LPD-OR could be matched to a patient undergoing LPD. With LPD-OR, the unplanned conversion rate was 21% vs. 9% with LPD (P < 0.001). Median blood loss (300 vs. 400 mL, P = 0.85), operative time (401 vs. 378 min, P = 0.62) and hospital stay (10 vs. 12 days, P = 0.31) were comparable for LPD-OR vs. LPD, as were Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (38% vs. 52%, P = 0.13), POPF grade B/C (23% vs. 21%, P = 0.82), and 90-day mortality (4% vs. 4%, P > 0.99)., Conclusion: In this propensity matched cohort performed early in the learning curve, no benefit was found for LPD-OR, as compared to LPD., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established., Methods: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year., Results: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €-427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €-4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75-10) versus 7 (4-8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy., Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery., (© 2019 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

In the absence of randomized trials, uncertainty regarding the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) remains. This systematic review aimed to compare oncologic outcomes after MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Matched and non-matched studies were included. Pooled analyses were performed for pathology (e.g., microscopically radical (R0) resection and lymph node retrieval) and oncologic outcomes (e.g., overall survival). After screening 1760 studies, 21 studies with 11,246 patients were included. Overall survival (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.01; p = 0.06), R0 resection rate (odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95%CI 0.97 to 1.58; p = 0.09) and use of adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.30; p = 0.46) were comparable for MIDP and ODP. The lymph node yield (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.3 lymph nodes; 95%CI -2.46 to -0.15; p = 0.03) was lower after MIDP. Patients undergoing MIDP were more likely to have smaller tumors (WMD -0.46 cm; 95%CI -0.67 to -0.24; p < 0.001), less perineural (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.33 to 0.70; p < 0.001) and less lymphovascular invasion (OR 0.53; 95%CI 0.38 to 0.74; p < 0.001) reflecting earlier staged disease as a result of treatment allocation bias. Based on these results we can conclude that in patients with PDAC, MIDP is associated with comparable survival, R0 resection, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy, but a lower lymph node yield, as compared to ODP. Due to treatment allocation bias and lower lymph node yield the oncologic efficacy of MIDP remains uncertain., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy may improve postoperative recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. However, there are concerns that the extensive learning curve of this complex procedure could increase the risk of complications. We aimed to assess whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy could reduce time to functional recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy., Methods: This multicentre, patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial was performed in four centres in the Netherlands that each do 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually; surgeons had to have completed a dedicated training programme for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and have done 20 or more laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies before trial participation. Patients with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy, without signs of vascular involvement, were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy using a central web-based system. Randomisation was stratified for annual case volume and preoperative estimated risk of pancreatic fistula. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The main objective of the phase 2 part of the trial was to assess the safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (complications and mortality), and the primary outcome of phase 3 was time to functional recovery in days, defined as all of the following: adequate pain control with only oral analgesia; independent mobility; ability to maintain more than 50% of the daily required caloric intake; no need for intravenous fluid administration; and no signs of infection (temperature <38·5°C). This trial is registered with Trialregister.nl, number NTR5689., Findings: Between May 13 and Dec 20, 2016, 42 patients were randomised in the phase 2 part of the trial. Two patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. Three (15%) of 20 patients died within 90 days after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, compared with none of 20 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on safety data from the phase 2 part of the trial, the data and safety monitoring board and protocol committee agreed to proceed with phase 3. Between Jan 31 and Nov 14, 2017, 63 additional patients were randomised in phase 3 of the trial. Four patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. After randomisation of 105 patients (combining patients from both phase 2 and phase 3), of whom 99 underwent surgery, the trial was prematurely terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of a difference in 90-day complication-related mortality (five [10%] of 50 patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group vs one [2%] of 49 in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group; risk ratio [RR] 4·90 [95% CI 0·59-40·44]; p=0·20). Median time to functional recovery was 10 days (95% CI 5-15) after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus 8 days (95% CI 7-9) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (log-rank p=0·80). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications (25 [50%] of 50 patients after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy vs 19 [39%] of 49 after open pancreatoduodenectomy; RR 1·29 [95% CI 0·82-2·02]; p=0·26) and grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulas (14 [28%] vs 12 [24%]; RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·59-2·22]; p=0·69) were comparable between groups., Interpretation: Although not statistically significant, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with more complication-related deaths than was open pancreatoduodenectomy, and there was no difference between groups in time to functional recovery. These safety concerns were unexpected and worrisome, especially in the setting of trained surgeons working in centres performing 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually. Experience, learning curve, and annual volume might have influenced the outcomes; future research should focus on these issues., Funding: Grant for investigator-initiated studies by Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess feasibility and outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD)., Background: Whereas expert centers have reported promising outcomes of LPD, nationwide analyses have raised concerns on its safety, especially during the learning curve. Multicenter, structured LPD training programs reporting outcomes including the first procedures are lacking. No LPD had been performed in the Netherlands before this study., Methods: During 2014-2016, 8 surgeons from 4 high-volume centers completed the Longitudinal Assessment and Realization of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery (LAELAPS-2) training program in LPD, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring. In all centers, LPD was performed by 2 surgeons with extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes of all LPDs were prospectively collected., Results: In total, 114 patients underwent LPD. Median pancreatic duct diameter was 3 mm [interquartile range (IQR = 2-4)] and pancreatic texture was soft in 74% of patients. The conversion rate was 11% (n = 12), median blood loss 350 mL (IQR = 200-700), and operative time 375 minutes (IQR = 320-431). Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 34% of patients, requiring catheter drainage in 22% and re-operation in 2%. A Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complication occurred in 43% of patients. Median length of hospital stay was 15 days (IQR = 9-25). Overall, 30-day and 90-day mortality were both 3.5%. Outcomes were similar for the first and second part of procedures., Conclusions: This LPD training program was feasible and ensured acceptable outcomes during the learning curve in all centers. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings and assess the added value of LPD.

Objective: This trial followed a structured nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), according to the IDEAL framework for surgical innovation, and aimed to compare time to functional recovery after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP)., Background: MIDP is increasingly used and may enhance postoperative recovery as compared with ODP, but randomized studies are lacking., Methods: A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial was performed in 14 centers between April 2015 and March 2017. Adult patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas without vascular involvement were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo MIDP or ODP. Patients were blinded for type of surgery using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5689)., Results: Time to functional recovery was 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3-6) in 51 patients after MIDP versus 6 days (IQR 5-8) in 57 patients after ODP (P < 0.001). The conversion rate of MIDP was 8%. Operative blood loss was less after MIDP (150 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), whereas operative time was longer (217 vs 179 minutes; P = 0.005). The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 25% versus 38% (P = 0.21). Delayed gastric emptying grade B/C was seen less often after MIDP (6% vs 20%; P = 0.04). Postoperative pancreatic fistulas grade B/C were seen in 39% after MIDP versus 23% after ODP (P = 0.07), without difference in percutaneous catheter drainage (22% vs 20%; P = 0.77). Quality of life (day 3-30) was better after MIDP as compared with ODP, and overall costs were non-significantly less after MIDP. No 90-day mortality was seen after MIDP versus 2% (n = 1) after ODP., Conclusions: In patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas, MIDP reduces time to functional recovery compared with ODP. Although the overall rate of complications was not reduced, MIDP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying and better quality of life without increasing costs.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)., Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC., Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival., Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929)., Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy. The International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery definition of POPF is used worldwide. Recently, an update of the definition was published. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of the update., Methods: An international retrospective validation study, including patients who underwent DP (2005 -2016) in 5 centers was performed. Distribution of complications amongst POPF grades were compared for the old and updated definition., Results: In total, 1089 patients were included. The incidence of POPF decreased with the updated definition from 47% to 24% (P < 0.01), largely because a downgrade of grade A and grade B into biochemical leak. Comparable morbidity was seen in the old and updated 'no POPF group' (Clavien -Dindo 3 5% vs. 6% P = 0.320 and hospital stay (7 vs. 7 days P = 0.301). The change in definition of POPF grade B resulted in more Clavien -Dindo 3 (38% vs. 51%) P < 0.01) and longer hospital stay (9 [9 -13] vs. 9 days [7 -15] P < 0.01) in the updated `grade B group'., Conclusion: Applying the updated POPF definition showed improved discrimination between grades and should therefore be used to report POPF after DP., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Radical resection of advanced pancreatic cancer may occasionally require a simultaneous colon resection. The risks and benefits of this combined procedure are largely unknown. This systematic review aimed to assess short and long term outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy with colon resection (PD-colon) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1994 and 2017 concerning PD-colon for PDAC., Results: After screening 2038 articles, 5 articles with a total of 181 patients undergoing PD-colon were eligible for inclusion. Included studies showed a relatively low risk of bias. The pooled complication rate was 73% (95% CI 61-84) including a pooled colonic anastomotic leak rate of 5.5%. Pooled mortality was 10% (95% CI 6-15). Pooled mean survival (data from 86 patients) was 18 months (95% CI 13-23) with pooled 3- and 5-year survival of 31% (95% CI 20-72) and 19% (95% CI 6-38)., Conclusion: Based on the available data, PD-colon for PDAC seems to be associated with an increased morbidity and mortality but with survival comparable with standard PD in selected patients. Future large series are needed to allow for better patient selection for PD-colon., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, rates of major complications and Failure to Rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy between low- and high-mortality hospitals are compared, and independent predictors for FTR investigated., Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in 2014 and 2015 in The Netherlands were included. Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on mortality rates. The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) and death after a major complication (FTR) were compared between these quartiles. Independent predictors for FTR were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis., Results: Out of 1.342 patients, 391 (29%) developed a major complication and in-hospital mortality was 4.2%. FTR occurred in 56 (14.3%) patients. Mortality was 0.9% in the first hospital quartile (4 hospitals, 327 patients) and 8.1% in the fourth quartile (5 hospitals, 310 patients). The rate of major complications increased by 40% (25.7% vs 35.2%) between the first and fourth hospital quartile, whereas the FTR rate increased by 560% (3.6% vs 22.9%). Independent predictors of FTR were male sex (OR = 2.1, 95%CI 1.2-3.9), age >75 years (OR = 4.3, 1.8-10.2), BMI ≥30 (OR = 2.9, 1.3-6.6), histopathological diagnosis of periampullary cancer (OR = 2.0, 1.1-3.7), and hospital volume <30 (OR = 3.9, 1.6-9.6)., Conclusions: Variations in mortality between hospitals after pancreatoduodenectomy were explained mainly by differences in FTR, rather than the incidence of major complications., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections are technically demanding but rapidly increasing in popularity. In contrast to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has not yet obtained wide acceptance, probably due to technical challenges, especially regarding the pancreatic anastomosis. The study describes and demonstrates all steps of LPD, including the modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy. Indications for LPD are all pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumors without vascular involvement. Relative contra-indications are body mass index >35 kg/m 2 , chronic pancreatitis, mid-cholangiocarcinomas and large duodenal cancers. The patient is in French position, 6 trocars are placed, and dissection is performed using an (articulating) sealing device. A modified Blumgart end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy is performed with 4 large needles (3/0) barbed trans-pancreatic sutures and 4 to 6 duct-to-mucosa sutures using 5/0 absorbable multifilament combined with a 12 cm, 6 or 8 Fr internal stent using 3D laparoscopy. Two surgical drains are placed alongside the pancreaticojejunostomy. The described technique for LPD including a modified Blumgart pancreatico-jejunostomy is well standardized, and its merits are currently studied in the randomized controlled multicenter trial. This complex operation should be performed at high-volume centers where surgeons have extensive experience in both open pancreatic surgery and advanced laparoscopic gastro-intestinal surgery.

Background: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (<10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting., Methods/design: LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. After the first 40 patients (phase 2), the data safety monitoring board will assess safety outcomes (not blinded for treatment allocation) and decide on continuation to phase 3. Patients from phase 2 will then be included in phase 3. The primary outcome measure is time (days) to functional recovery. All patients will be blinded for the surgical approach, at least until postoperative day 5, but preferably until functional recovery has been attained. Secondary outcome measures are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life, and costs., Discussion: The LEOPARD-2 trial is designed to assess whether MIPD reduces time to functional recovery, as compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5689 . Registered on 2 March 2016.

Background: Following induction chemotherapy, both resection or irreversible electroporation (IRE) may further improve survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, prospective studies combining these strategies are currently lacking, and available studies only report on subgroups that completed treatment. This study aimed to determine the applicability and outcomes of resection and IRE in patients with nonprogressive LAPC after induction chemotherapy., Methods: This was a prospective, single-center cohort study in consecutive patients with LAPC (September 2013 to March 2015). All patients were offered 3 months of induction chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine depending on performance status), followed by exploratory laparotomy for resection or IRE in patients with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 nonprogressive, IRE-eligible tumors., Results: Of 132 patients with LAPC, 70% (n = 93) started with chemotherapy (46% [n = 61] FOLFIRINOX). After 3 months, 59 patients (64%) had nonprogressive disease, of whom 36 (27% of the entire cohort) underwent explorative laparotomy, resulting in 14 resections (11% of the entire cohort, 39% of the explored patients) and 15 IREs (11% of the entire cohort, 42% of the explored patients). After laparotomy, 44% (n = 16) of patients had Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications, and 90-day all-cause mortality was 11% (n = 4). With a median follow-up of 24 months, median overall survival after resection, IRE, and for all patients with nonprogressive disease without resection/IRE (n = 30) was 34, 16, and 15 months, respectively. The resection rate in 61 patients receiving FOLFIRINOX treatment was 20%., Conclusion: Induction chemotherapy followed by IRE or resection in nonprogressive LAPC led to resection or IRE in 22% of all-comers, with promising survival rates after resection but no apparent benefit of IRE, despite considerable morbidity. Registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4230).

Background: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is becoming the standard treatment for left-sided pancreatic disease. Learning curve identification is essential to ensure a safe and steady expansion. However, large (n > 30) single-surgeon learning curve series are lacking., Study Design: Data of all patients undergoing LDP between June 2007 and March 2016 by a single surgeon were collected prospectively. For learning curve analysis, the first 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 LDPs were compared with LDPs performed thereafter., Results: In total, 111 LDPs were performed, of which 2 (2%) were converted. Median operative time was 200 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 150 to 245 minutes) and median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100 to 300 mL). Learning curve analysis did not show improvements in operative time or blood loss. However, the number of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma increased after 30 cases and a significant reduction of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications was seen; from 30% (n = 9) for cases 1 to 30 to 5% (n = 4) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C fistulas (33% [n = 10] vs 9% [n = 7]; p = 0.001) and percutaneous drainage rate (23% [n = 7] vs 4% [n = 3]; p = 0.001) were lower. Hospital stay was 7 days (IQR 5 to 13 days) for cases 1 to 30 vs 5 days (IQR 4 to 6 days) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Operative outcomes of LDP remained stable with increasing surgical complexity over time. Postoperative outcomes, such as complications and length of hospital stay, improved after the first 30 cases. When describing learning curves, short- and long-term outcomes should be considered., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting., Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs., Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction., Results: From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD., Conclusion: MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure., Methods: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP., Results: Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group., Discussion: Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP)., Summary of Background Data: Superior outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy have been reported. In the Netherlands (2005 to 2013) only 10% of distal pancreatectomies were in a minimally invasive fashion and 85% of surgeons welcomed MIDP training. The feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program is unknown., Methods: From 2014 to 2015, 32 pancreatic surgeons from 17 centers participated in a nationwide training program in MIDP, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring on-site. Outcomes of MIDP before training (2005-2013) were compared with outcomes after training (2014-2015)., Results: In total, 201 patients were included; 71 underwent MIDP in 9 years before training versus 130 in 22 months after training (7-fold increase, P < 0.001). The conversion rate (38% [n = 27] vs 8% [n = 11], P < 0.001) and blood loss were lower after training and more pancreatic adenocarcinomas were resected (7 [10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67). Clavien-Dindo score ≥III complications (15 [21%] vs 19 [15%], P = 0.24) and pancreatic fistulas (20 [28%] vs 41 [32%], P = 0.62) were not significantly different. Length of hospital stay was shorter after training (9 [7-12] vs 7 [5-8] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3% vs 0% (P = 0.12)., Conclusion: A nationwide MIDP training program was feasible and followed by a steep increase in the use of MIDP, also in patients with pancreatic cancer, and decreased conversion rates. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings.

Background: Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy has been well described for benign pancreatic lesions, but its role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains open to debate. We report our results adopting a laparoscopic technique that obeys established oncologic principles of open distal pancreatosplenectomy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a prospectively kept database of 135 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy, performed across two sites in the UK and the Netherlands (07/2007-07/2015 Southampton and 10/2013-07/2015 Amsterdam). Primary outcomes were resection margin and lymph node retrieval. Secondary endpoints were other perioperative outcomes, including post-operative pancreatic fistula. Definition of radical resection was distance tumour to resection margin >1 mm. All patients underwent 'laparoscopic radical left pancreatosplenectomy' (LRLP) which involves 'hanging' the pancreas including Gerota's fascia, followed by clockwise dissection, including formal lymphadenectomy., Results: LRLP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed in 25 patients. Seven of the 25 patients (28 %) had extended resections, including the adrenal gland (n = 3), duodenojejunal flexure (n = 2) or transverse mesocolon (n = 3). Mean age was 68 years (54-81). Conversion rate was 0 %, mean operative time 240 min and mean blood loss 340 ml. Median intensive/high care and hospital stay were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Clavien-Dindo score 3+ complication rate was 12 % and ISGPF grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate 28 %; 90-day (or in-hospital) mortality was 0 %. The pancreatic resection margin was clear in all patients, and the posterior margin was involved (<1 mm) in 6 patients, meaning an overall R0 resection rate of 76 %. No resection margin was microscopically involved. Median nodal sample was 15 nodes (3-26). With an average follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year survival was 88 %., Conclusions: A standardised laparoscopic approach to pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the left pancreas can be adopted safely. Our study shows that these results can be reproduced across multiple sites using the same technique.

Objective: This study aimed to appraise and to evaluate the current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy only in comparative cohort and registry studies., Background: Outcomes after MIPD seem promising, but most data come from single-center, noncomparative series., Methods: Comparative cohort and registry studies on MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published before August 23, 2015 were identified systematically and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were mortality and International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF)., Results: After screening 2293 studies, 19 comparative cohort studies (1833 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 2 original registry studies (19,996 patients) were included. For cohort studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 14. Selection bias was present for cancer diagnosis. No differences were found in mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-1.9] or POPF [(OR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3]. Publication bias was present for POPF. MIPD was associated with prolonged operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 74 minutes, 95% CI = 29-118], but lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -385 mL, 95% CI = -616 to -154), less delayed gastric emptying (OR = 0.6, 95% = CI 0.5-0.8), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3 days, 95% CI = -5 to -2). For registry studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 2.5. Mortality after MIPD was increased in low-volume hospitals (7.5% vs 3.4%; P = 0.003)., Conclusions: Outcomes after MIPD seem promising in comparative cohort studies, despite the presence of bias, whereas registry studies report higher mortality in low-volume centers. The introduction of MIPD should be closely monitored and probably done only within structured training programs in high-volume centers.

Objectives: Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement., Methods: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%., Results: Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference -6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008)., Conclusions: EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

Background: Microscopically radical (R0) resection of pancreatic, periampullary, or colon cancer may occasionally require a pancreatoduodenectomy with colon resection (PD-colon), but the benefits of this procedure have been disputed, and multicenter studies on morbidity and oncologic outcomes after PD-colon are lacking. This study aimed to assess complications and survival after PD-colon., Methods: Patients who had undergone PD-colon from 2004-2014 in 1 of 13 centers were analyzed retrospectively. Ninety-day morbidity was scored using the Clavien-Dindo score and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI, 0 = no complications, 100 = death). Survival was analyzed per histopathologic diagnosis., Results: After screening 3,218 consecutive PDs, 50 (1.6%) PD-colon patients (median age 66 years [interquartile range 55-72], 33 [66%] men) were included. Twenty-three (46%) patients had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 19 (38%) other pathology, and 8 (16%) colon cancer. Ninety-day Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications occurred in 30 (60%) patients without differences per diagnosis (P > .99); mean CCI was 39 (standard deviation 27). Colonic anastomosis leak, pancreatic fistula, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3 (6%), 2 (4%), and 4 (8%) patients, respectively. A total of 11/23 (48%) patients with PDAC and 8/8 (100%) patients with colon cancer underwent an R0 resection. Patients with PDAC had a median postoperative survival of 13 months (95% confidence interval = 5-21). One-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative survival was 56%, 21%, and 14%, respectively. Median survival after R0 resection for PDAC was 21 months (95% confidence interval = 6-35). All patients with colon cancer were alive at end of follow-up (median 24 months [95% confidence interval = 9-110])., Conclusion: In this retrospective, multicenter study, PD-colon was associated with considerable complications and acceptable survival rates when a tumor negative resection margin was achieved., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pancreatic cancer involving the coeliac axis is considered unresectable by most guidelines, with a median survival of 6-11 months. A subgroup of these patients can undergo distal pancreatectomy with coeliac axis resection, but consensus on the value of this procedure is lacking. The evidence for this procedure, including the impact of preoperative hepatic artery embolization and (neo)adjuvant therapy, was evaluated., Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines until 27 May 2015. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included morbidity and radical resection rates., Results: A total of 19 retrospective studies, involving 240 patients, were included. The methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to moderate. A radical resection was reported in 74·5 per cent (152 of 204), major morbidity in 27 per cent (26 of 96), ischaemic morbidity in 9·0 per cent (21 of 223) and 90-day mortality in 3·5 per cent (4 of 113). Overall, 35·5 per cent of patients (55 of 155) underwent preoperative hepatic artery embolization without an apparent beneficial impact on ischaemic morbidity. Overall, 15·7 per cent (29 of 185) had neoadjuvant and 51·0 per cent (75 of 147) had adjuvant therapy. There was a difference in survival between patient series where less than half of patients had (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and series where more than half were receiving this treatment: case-weighted median overall survival was 16 (range 9-48) versus 18 (10-26) months respectively (P = 0·002). Overall median survival for the whole study population was 14·4 (range 9-48) months., Conclusion: Distal pancreatectomy with coeliac axis resection seems a valuable option for selected patients with pancreatic cancer involving the coeliac axis with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and a median survival of 18 months when combined with (neo)adjuvant therapy., (© 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Background: Minimally invasive (MI) pancreatic surgery appears to be gaining popularity, but its implementation throughout Europe and the opinions regarding its use in pancreatic cancer patients are unknown., Methods: A 30-question survey was sent between June and December 2014 to pancreatic surgeons of the European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and 5 European national pancreatic societies. Incomplete responses were excluded., Results: In total, 237 pancreatic surgeons responded. After excluding 34 incomplete responses, 203 responses from 27 European countries were included. 164 (81%) surgeons were employed at a university hospital, 184 (91%) performed advanced MI surgery and 148 (73%) performed MI distal pancreatectomy. MI pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by 42 (21%) surgeons, whereas 9 (4.4%) surgeons had performed more than 10 procedures. Robot-assisted MI pancreatic surgery was performed by 28 (14%) surgeons. 63 (31%) surgeons expected MI distal pancreatectomy for cancer to be inferior to open distal pancreatectomy concerning oncological outcomes. 151 (74%) surgeons expected to benefit from training in MI distal pancreatectomy and 149 (73%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial on this topic., Conclusions: MI distal pancreatectomy is a common procedure, although its use for cancer is still disputed. MI pancreatoduodenectomy is still an uncommon procedure. Specific training and a randomized trial regarding MI pancreatic cancer surgery are welcomed., (Copyright © 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large multicenter series on outcomes and predictors of survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are scarce., Methods: Adults who underwent DP for PDAC in 17 Dutch pancreatic centers between January 2005 and September 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was survival, and predictors of survival were identified using Cox regression analysis., Results: In total, 761 consecutive patients after DP were assessed, of whom 620 patients were excluded because of non-PDAC histopathology (n = 616) or a lack of data (n = 4), leaving a total of 141 patients included in the study [45 % (n = 63) male, mean age 64 years (SD = 10)]. Multivisceral resection was performed in 43 patients (30 %) and laparoscopic resection was performed in 7 patients (5 %). A major complication (Clavien-Dindo score of III or higher) occurred in 46 patients (33 %). Mean tumor size was 44 mm (SD 23), and histopathological examination showed 70 R0 resections (50 %), while 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3 and 6 %, respectively. Overall, 63 patients (45 %) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median survival was 17 months [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21], with a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 8-29). Cumulative survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 64, 29, and 22 %, respectively. Independent predictors of worse postoperative survival were R1/R2 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.4], pT3/pT4 stage (HR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.3-2.9), a major complication (HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5), and not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.0-2.3)., Conclusion: Survival after DP for PDAC is poor and is related to resection margin, tumor stage, surgical complications, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies should assess to what extent prevention of surgical complications and more extensive use of adjuvant chemotherapy can improve survival.

We describe a case of intra-arterial treatment (IAT) of acute posterior circulation occlusion in a patient with a persistent primitive trigeminal artery (PPTA). The patient presented with an acute left sided hemiparesis and loss of consciousness (Glasgow coma score of 5). Computed tomography angiography showed an acute occlusion of the right internal carotid artery (ICA), the PPTA, distal basilar artery (BA), right posterior cerebral artery (PCA), and right superior cerebellar artery (SCA). Stent-retriever assisted thrombectomy was not considered possible through the hypoplastic proximal BA. After passage of the proximal ICA occlusion, the right PCA and SCA were recanalized through the PPTA, with a single thrombectomy procedure. Ten days after intervention patient was discharged scoring optimal EMV with only a mild facial and left hand paresis remaining. PPTA is a persistent embryological carotid-basilar connection. Knowledge of existing (embryonic) variants in neurovascular anatomy is essential when planning and performing acute neurointerventional procedures., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: Nasoenteral tube feeding is frequently required in hospitalized patients to either prevent or treat malnutrition, but data on the optimal strategy of tube placement are lacking., Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults., Design: Systematic review of the literature., Patients: Adult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding., Interventions: EM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement., Main Outcome Measurements: Success rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events., Results: Of 354 screened articles, 28 studies were included. Data on 4056 patients undergoing EM-guided (n = 2921), endoscopic (n = 730), and/or fluoroscopic (n = 405) nasoenteral feeding tube placement were extracted. Tube placement was successful in 3202 of 3789 (85%) EM-guided procedures compared with 706 of 793 (89%) endoscopic and 413 of 446 (93%) fluoroscopic procedures. Reinsertion rates were similar for EM-guidance (270 of 1279 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (64 of 394 [16%] patients) or fluoroscopy (10 of 38 [26%] patients). The mean (standard deviation) procedure time was shortest with EM-guided placement (13.4 [12.9] minutes), followed by endoscopy and fluoroscopy (14.9 [8.7] and 16.2 [23.6] minutes, respectively). Procedure-related adverse events were infrequent (0.4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively) and included mainly epistaxis. The tube-related adverse event rate was lowest in the EM-guided group (36 of 242 [15%] patients), followed by fluoroscopy (40 of 191 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (115 of 384 [30%] patients) and included mainly dislodgment and blockage of the tube., Limitations: Heterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies., Conclusion: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes appears to be as safe and effective as fluoroscopic or endoscopic placement. EM-guided tube placement by nurses may be preferred over more costly procedures performed by endoscopists or radiologists, but randomized studies are lacking., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastroparesis is common in surgical patients and frequently leads to the need for enteral tube feeding. Nasoenteral feeding tubes are usually placed endoscopically by gastroenterologists, but this procedure is relatively cumbersome for patients and labor-intensive for hospital staff. Electromagnetic (EM) guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may reduce patient discomfort, workload and costs, but randomized studies are lacking, especially in surgical patients. We hypothesize that EM guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes is at least as effective as endoscopic placement in surgical patients, at lower costs., Methods/design: The CORE trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 154 patients admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five hospitals, requiring nasoenteral feeding, will be randomly allocated to undergo EM guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Primary outcome is reinsertion of the feeding tube, defined as the insertion of an endoscope or tube in the nose/mouth and esophagus for (re)placement of the feeding tube (e.g. after failed initial placement or dislodgement or blockage of the tube). Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, costs and tube (placement) related complications., Discussion: The CORE trial is designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of EM guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients and the impact on costs as compared to endoscopic placement. The trial potentially offers a strong argument for wider implementation of this technique as method of choice for placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register: NTR4420 , date registered 5-feb-2014.

Background: Cohort studies from expert centers suggest that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is superior to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay. But the generalizability of these findings is unknown because nationwide data on LDP are lacking., Study Design: Adults who had undergone distal pancreatectomy in 17 centers between 2005 and 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. First, all LDPs were compared with all ODPs. Second, groups were matched using a propensity score. Third, the attitudes of pancreatic surgeons toward LDP were surveyed. The primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III)., Results: Among 633 included patients, 64 patients (10%) had undergone LDP and 569 patients (90%) had undergone ODP. Baseline characteristics were comparable, except for previous abdominal surgery and mean tumor size. In the full cohort, LDP was associated with fewer major complications (16% vs 29%; p = 0.02) and a shorter median [interquartile range, IQR] hospital stay (8 days [7-12 days] vs 10 days [8-14 days]; p = 0.03). Of all LDPs, 33% were converted to ODP. Matching succeeded for 63 LDP patients. After matching, the differences in major complications (9 patients [14%] vs 19 patients [30%]; p = 0.06) and median [IQR] length of hospital stay (8 days [7-12 days] vs 10 days [8-14 days]; p = 0.48) were not statistically significant. The survey demonstrated that 85% of surgeons welcomed LDP training., Conclusions: Despite nationwide underuse and an impact of selection bias, outcomes of LDP seemed to be at least noninferior to ODP. Specific training is welcomed and could improve both the use and outcomes of LDP., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.

Background: Nasoenteral tube feeding is often required in surgical patients, mainly because of delayed gastric emptying. Bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided tube placement by specialized nurses might offer several advantages (e.g., reduced patient discomfort and costs) over conventional endoscopic placement. The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of EM-guided to endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients., Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 267 adult patients admitted to two gastrointestinal surgical wards who received a nasoenteral feeding tube by EM-guidance or endoscopy. Eighteen patients were excluded because of insufficient data. Patients were categorized according to the primary tube placement method. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary endpoint was successful tube placement at or beyond the duodenojejunal flexure., Results: A total of 249 patients were included, of which 90 patients underwent EM-guided and 159 patients underwent endoscopic tube placement. Both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. Primary tube placement was successful in 74/90 patients (82 %) in the EM-guided group versus 140/159 patients (88 %) in the endoscopic group (P = 0.20). In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates were significantly lower in the EM-guided group (58 vs. 86 %, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in tube-related complications such as dislodgement or tube blockage., Conclusions: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by specialized nurses did not differ from endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists regarding feasibility and safety in surgical patients with unaltered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.

The clinical diagnosis of a ruptured aortic aneurysm is unreliable, and in haemodynamically stable patients both ultrasound and CT are used to improve diagnostic accuracy. In any patient with a suspected ruptured aneurysm, ultrasound is done upon arrival of the patient in the hospital to confirm or exclude the presence of an aortic aneurysm. If facilities for endovascular reconstruction are available at the hospital, an immediate CT scan with intravenous contrast follows, to find out if and how endovascular treatment should be performed. If endovascular reconstruction is not available, a CT scan without using contrast is carried out. If the CT scan shows a ruptured aneurysm, the patient is transported to the Operating Department without further delay. If the CT scan does not show any signs of rupture, there is time for further investigation. If no alternative condition to explain the patient's symptoms is found, further diagnostic tests such as repeat ultrasound, CT with contrast material and laboratory tests can be performed. If no other serious condition emerges, the aortic aneurysm should be considered symptomatic. In this case, the patient should undergo a rapid, but thorough pre-operative work-up, and go for operation as soon as possible by a rested and experienced operating team as part of the regular day programme.