Search

Background: Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P=0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P=0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84). Conclusion: Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified., Methods: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP)., Results: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers., Conclusion: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands., Methods: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates., Results: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)