Search

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is equivalent in safety and efficacy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) while decreasing number of procedures and length of stay (LOS). Despite these advantages LCBDE is infrequently utilized. We hypothesized that formal, simulation-based training in LCBDE would result in increased utilization and improve patient outcomes across participating institutions., Methods: Data was obtained from an on-going multi-center study in which simulator-based transcystic LCBDE training curricula were instituted for attending surgeons and residents. A 2-year retrospective review of LCBDE utilization prior to LCBDE training was compared to utilization up to 2 years after initiation of training. Patient outcomes were analyzed between LCBDE strategy and ERCP strategy groups using χ 2 , t tests, and Wilcoxon rank tests., Results: A total of 50 attendings and 70 residents trained in LCBDE since November 2020. Initial LCBDE utilization rate ranged from 0.74 to 4.5%, and increased among all institutions after training, ranging from 9.3 to 41.4% of cases. There were 393 choledocholithiasis patients analyzed using LCBDE (N = 129) and ERCP (N = 264) strategies. The LCBDE group had shorter median LOS (3 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). No significant differences in readmission rates between LCBDE and ERCP groups (4.7% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.33), or in post-procedure pancreatitis (0.8% v 0.8%, p > 0.98). In comparison to LCBDE, the ERCP group had higher rates of bile duct injury (0% v 3.8%, p = 0.034) and fluid collections requiring intervention (0.8% v 6.8%, p < 0.009) secondary to cholecystectomy complications. Laparoscopic antegrade balloon sphincteroplasty had the highest technical success rate (87%), followed by choledochoscopic techniques (64%)., Conclusion: Simulator-based training in LCBDE results in higher utilization rates, shorter LOS, and comparable safety to ERCP plus cholecystectomy. Therefore, implementation of LCBDE training is strongly recommended to optimize healthcare utilization and management of patients with choledocholithiasis., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver's two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies., Methods: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations., Results: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusion: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The role of concomitant gastrostomy or jejunostomy feeding tube (FT) placement during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and its impact on patient outcomes remain controversial., Methods: NSQIP database was surveyed for patients undergoing PD between 2014 and 2017. FT placement was identified using CPT codes. Propensity scores were used to match the two groups (1:1) on baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables including pancreas specific ones (duct size, gland texture, underlying disease, wound class, use of wound protector, drain placement, type of pancreatic reconstruction and vascular reconstruction). Outcomes were compared. Finally, a subset analyses for patients with delayed gastric emptying (DGE) or postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were performed., Results: Out of 15,224 PD, 1,104 (7.5%) had FT. POPF and DGE rates were 17% and 18%, respectively, for the entire cohort. Feeding jejunostomy was the most placed FT (88.2%). Patients with FT placement were more likely to be older (mean, 65.8 vs. 64.6 y), smokers (22.6% vs. 17.8%) who had preoperative weight loss (22.5% vs. 15.3%), ASA class ≥ 3 (80.8% vs. 77.5%), preoperative transfusion (1.5% vs. 0.84%), chemotherapy (22.8% vs. 17.5%), and radiation (14.5% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.05). The matched cohort included 880 patients in each group with completely balanced preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. In the matched cohort, patients with FT placement had higher overall morbidity (52.2% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.001), major morbidity (28.4% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.004), organ/space infection (14.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.026), re-operation (8.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.003), DGE (26.8% vs. 16.4%, p < 0.001), and longer mean hospital length of stay (12.9 vs. 11.2 days, p = 0.001) than those without FT. There was no difference in mortality (1.7% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.488) or readmission rate (20.2% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.099). In patients with DGE and POPF, FT placement was not associated with morbidity, mortality, length of stay, or readmission rate (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: Patients with FT placement during PD tend to have higher postoperative morbidity and delayed recovery., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Patients with higher postoperative infection risk undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) have limited options for mesh use. Biosynthetic mesh is intended to utilize the durability of synthetic mesh combined with the biocompatibility of biologic mesh. We sought to assess the outcomes of a novel biosynthetic scaffold mesh for VHR in higher risk patients over a 12-month postoperative period., Methods: Two cohorts of 50 consecutive patients who underwent VHR with TELA Bio OviTex biosynthetic or synthetic mesh were retrospectively compared. Endpoints included surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission rate, and hernia recurrence following VHR at 12 months postoperatively., Results: OviTex mesh placement was associated with higher risk Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) distribution and more contaminated CDC wound class distribution compared to synthetic mesh placement (VHWG grade 3: 68% vs. 6%, p < 0.001; CDC class > I: 70% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Additionally, concomitant procedures were performed more often with OviTex mesh placement than synthetic mesh placement (70% vs 10%, p < 0.001). The OviTex mesh performed comparably to synthetic mesh in terms of incidences of SSO (36% vs 22%, p = 0.19), readmission rates (24% vs 14%, p = 0.31), and hernia recurrence (6% vs 12%, p = 0.74). On further evaluation, patients who developed SSO with OviTex mesh (n = 18) had a 17% hernia recurrence whereas those with synthetic mesh (n = 11) had an associated 55% hernia recurrence (p = 0.048)., Conclusions: The OviTex biosynthetic mesh was used in higher risk patients and performed similarly to synthetic mesh in regards to rate of SSO, readmissions, and hernia recurrence. Furthermore, patients who developed SSO with Ovitex mesh were significantly less likely to have hernia recurrence than those with synthetic mesh. Overall, the data suggest that biosynthetic mesh is a more desirable option for definitive hernia repair in higher risk patients., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: There are no studies examining the use of subhepatic drains after simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM). This study aimed to (1) describe the current practices regarding primary drain placement, (2) evaluate drain efficacy in mitigating postoperative complications, and (3) determine impact of drain maintenance duration on patient outcomes., Methods: The ACS-NSQIP targeted data from 2014 to 2017 were analyzed. Propensity score of surgical drain versus no drain cohorts was performed. Main study outcomes were mortality, major morbidity, organ/space surgical site infection (SSI), secondary drain/aspiration procedure, and any septic events. Additional univariate/multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify associations with drain placement and duration. Major hepatectomy was defined as formal right hepatectomy and any trisectionectomy., Results: 584 combined liver and colorectal resection (CRR) cases were identified. Open partial hepatectomy with colectomy was the most common procedure (70%, n = 407). Nearly 40% of patients received surgical drains (n = 226). Major hepatectomy, lower serum albumin, and no intraoperative portal vein occlusion (Pringle maneuver) were significantly associated with drain placement (p < 0.05). In the matched cohort (n = 190 in each arm), patients with surgical drains experienced higher rates of major morbidity (30% vs 12%), organ/space SSI (16% vs 6%), postoperative drain/aspiration procedures (9% vs 3%), and sepsis/septic shock (12% vs 4%) (all p < 0.05). Patients with severely prolonged drain removal, defined as after postoperative day 13 (POD13), had higher risk of postoperative morbidity compared to those with earlier drain removal (p < 0.01). 30-day mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups., Conclusion: Primary surgical drains were placed in a substantial percentage of patients undergoing combined resection for sCRLM. This case-matched analysis suggested that surgical drains are associated with an increase in postoperative morbidity. Postoperative drain maintenance past 13 days is associated with worse outcomes compared to earlier removal.

Objective: Hepatectomy is a complex operative procedure frequently performed at academic institutions with trainee participation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of assistant's training level on outcomes following hepatectomy., Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective, single-institution ACS-NSQIP database was performed for patients that underwent hepatectomy (2013-2016). Patients were divided by trainee assistant level: hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) fellow versus general surgery resident (PGY 4-5). Demographic, perioperative, and 30-day outcome variables were compared using Chi-Square/Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable regression. Cases involving a senior-level general surgery resident or HPB fellow as first assistant were included (n = 352). Those with a second attending, junior-level resident, or no documented assistant were excluded (n = 39)., Results: Patients undergoing hepatectomy with an HPB fellow as primary assistant had more frequent preoperative biliary stenting, longer operative time, and more concomitant procedures including biliary reconstruction, resulting in a higher rate of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (15% vs. 8%, P = 0.044). However, trainee level did not impact PHLF on multivariable analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.29-1.25], P = 0.173). Fellows assisted with proportionally more major hepatectomies (45% vs. 31%; P = 0.010) and resections for hepatobiliary cancers (31% vs. 19%, P = 0.014). On stratified analysis of major and minor hepatectomies, outcomes were similar between trainee groups., Conclusion: Fellows performed higher complexity cases with longer operative time. Despite these differences, outcomes were similar regardless of assistant training level. Resident and HPB fellow participation in operations requiring liver resection provide comparable quality of care.

Purpose: To compare the short-term and oncologic outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP)., Methods: Consecutive cases of distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 422) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 10-year period (2005-2014). Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient with PDAC by surgical pathology. Ninety-day outcomes were monitored through a prospectively maintained pancreatic resection database. The Social Security Death Index was used for 5-year survival. Two-way statistical analyses were used to compare categories; variance was reported with standard error of the mean; * indicates P value <0.05., Results: Seventy-nine patients underwent DP for PDAC. Thirty-three underwent LDP and 46 ODP. There were no statistical differences in demographics, BMI, and ASA classification. Intraoperative and surgical pathology variables were comparable for LDP versus ODP: operative time (3.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.2 ± 0.2 h), duct size, gland texture, stump closure, tumor size (3.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.0 ± 0.4 cm), lymph node harvest (14.5 ± 1.1 vs. 17.5 ± 1.2), tumor stage (see table), and negative surgical margins (77 vs. 87%). Patients who underwent LDP experienced lower blood loss (310 ± 68 vs. 597 ± 95 ml; P = 0.016*) and required fewer transfusions (0 vs. 13; P = 0.0008*). Patients who underwent LDP had fewer positive lymph nodes (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3; P = 0.04*) and a lower incidence of type C pancreatic fistula (0 vs. 13%; P = 0.03*). Median follow-up for all patients was 11.4 months. Long-term oncologic outcomes revealed similar outcomes including distant or local recurrence (30 vs. 52%; P = 0.05) and median survival (18 vs. 15 months), as well as 1-year (73 vs. 59%), 3-year (22 vs. 21%), and 5-year (20 vs. 15%) survival for LDP and ODP, respectively., Conclusions: The results of this series suggest that LDP is a safe surgical approach that is comparable from an oncologic standpoint to ODP for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Introduction: Aggressive en bloc resection of adjacent organs is often necessary to resect pancreatic or colonic lesions. However, it is debated whether simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) is warranted as it potentially increases morbidity and mortality (MM). We hypothesized that MM would be increased in P+C, especially in cases of pancreatitis., Methods: All patients who underwent pancreatectomy (P) and simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) at a high-volume center from November 2006 to 2015 were prospectively collected using ACS-NSQIP at our institution. Patients with additional multivisceral or enucleation procedures were excluded. Data were augmented to 90-day outcomes using our institutional database., Results: Forty-three patients with a mean age of 62 years (27:16 male: female) underwent P+C, accounting for 2.39% (43/1797) of pancreatectomies performed. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was performed in 61% (n = 26), distal pancreatectomy (DP) in 37% (n = 16), and total pancreatectomy (TP) in 2% (n = 1) of patients. The 30- and 90-day MM were higher in P+C than P (30-day: 54 vs. 37%, p = 0.037 and 9 vs. 2%, p = 0.022; 90-day: 61 vs. 42%, p = 0.019 and 14 vs. 3%, p = 0.002). Logistical regression modeling revealed an association between 90-day mortality and colectomy (p = 0.013, OR = 3.556). When P+C MM were analyzed according to intraoperative factors, there was no significant difference according to type of pancreatectomy (PD vs. DP vs. TP), origin of primary lesion (pancreas vs. colon), surgical indication (malignant vs. non-malignant), or case status (planned colectomy vs. intraoperative decision)., Conclusions: Addition of colectomy to pancreatectomy substantially increased MM. Subanalysis revealed that type of resection performed, etiology, and planning status did not account for increased risk when performing P+C. However, colectomy was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Therefore, patients should be informed of the risk of increased postoperative complications until a further study can identify potential patients or perioperative factors that can be used for risk stratification.

Background: The magnitude of risk for patients undergoing cholecystectomy with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores is poorly understood., Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2013 was used to study patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Patients were excluded if they had choledocholithiasis or preoperative dialysis. Bivariate data analysis was performed and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes., Results: A total of 63,464 patients were included in the study. Unadjusted mortality significantly increased as the MELD score increased in the laparoscopic (MELD = 6-10, 0.2%; 11-15, 1.1%; 16-20, 3.2%; >20, 5.8%) and open groups (MELD = 6-10, 1.5%; 11-15, 3.7%; 16-20, 8.6%; >20, 17.9%) (p-value <0.001 for both). Unadjusted morbidity also increased with MELD score increases in the laparoscopic (MELD = 6-10, 3.8%; 11-15, 9.9%; 16-20, 16.3%; >20, 22.8%) and open groups (MELD = 6-10, 18.7%; 11-15, 28.2%; 16-20, 40.7%; >20, 57.8%) (p-value <0.001 for both). Patients with ascites and high MELD scores had higher rates of mortality (laparoscopic, MELD > 20, 33.3%; open, MELD > 20, 48.5%) and morbidity (laparoscopic, MELD > 20, 66.7%; open, MELD > 20, 75.8%) across all MELD scores. After adjustment, MELD score acted as a progressive and independent predictor of morbidity and mortality., Conclusions: The MELD score is an objective and easy to calculate scoring system that independently predicts postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Patients with ascites have substantially worse outcomes across all MELD scores. Open cholecystectomy is associated with significantly more morbidity and mortality than laparoscopic cholecystectomy across all MELD groups.

Introduction: Robotic colorectal surgery is being increasingly adopted. Our objective was to compare early postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy in a nationally representative sample., Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Colectomy Targeted Dataset from 2012 to 2014 was used for this study. Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy with an anastomosis were included. Patients were stratified based on location of colorectal resection (low anterior resection (LAR), left-sided resection, or right-sided resection). Bivariate data analysis was performed, and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes., Results: There were a total of 25,998 laparoscopic colectomies (30 % LAR's, 45 % left-sided, and 25 % right-sided) and 1484 robotic colectomies (54 % LAR's, 28 % left-sided, and 18 % right-sided). The risk-adjusted overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in all anastomotic groups. Patients undergoing robotic LAR had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76) and postoperative sepsis rate (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.29-0.85) but a higher rate of diverting ostomies (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76). Robotic right-sided colectomies had significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.34-0.96). Robotic colectomy in all groups was associated with a longer operative time (by 40 min) and a decreased length of stay (by 0.5 days)., Conclusions: In a nationally representative sample comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomies, the overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality between groups are similar while length of stay was shorter by 0.5 days in the robotic colectomy group. Robotic LAR was associated with lower conversion rates and lower septic complications. However, robotic LAR is also associated with a significantly higher rate of diverting ostomy. The reason for this relationship is unclear. Surgeon factors, patient factors, and technical factors should be considered in future studies.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard of care for treatment of benign biliary disease. Declining reimbursements and increasing medical costs require physicians to examine closely their choices for equipment to decrease overall costs, particularly looking at key steps of cholecystectomy. The objective of this study was to examine variations between surgeons in equipment and operating room costs for elective LC., Methods: Elective LC performed at IUH West Hospital in 2013 was analyzed. Patient demographics, preoperative diagnosis, operative time, surgical equipment, and resident participation were tracked. Exclusion criteria included acute cholecystitis and cases with additional procedures. Electronic medical records for clinical data and administrative records for reimbursement data were reviewed. Total supply costs and disposable costs for key portions of the LC were analyzed. Reimbursements were obtained from all payers for LC., Results: All LC were examined (n = 362) and 272 met inclusion criteria. Demographics and pathology were similar between surgeons. Operative time varied significantly (range 53-98 min) with the lowest cost surgeon taking the longest overall time. Times were significantly affected by resident participation. The total morbidity was 4 %, with no mortalities. Total supply costs by surgeon ranged from $412-$924. The most costeffective technique included the use of plastic locking clips and hook electrocautery. Hospital and surgeon reimbursements were $336-$11,554 and $669-$1500 respectively., Conclusion: This study highlights effects of surgeon choice as it relates to variable costs for surgical technique during elective LC without compromising safety. With healthcare reform emphasizing reduced healthcare expenditures, it is vital for surgeons to identify areas of unnecessary cost. Operating room time also contributes to cost, thus surgeons should implement techniques to complete procedures in a safe yet efficient fashion. Transparency by surgeons can lead to data that may support standardization of technique across a healthcare system to lower total supply costs.

Pilomyxoid astrocytoma (PMA) is a rare glioma that shares histopathological similarities with pilocytic astrocytoma (PA). Yet, typical examples of both can be distinguished on clinical and histological grounds. The reported aggressive behavior of PMA provides a rationale for distinguishing this entity from typical PA. We report a 6(1/2) -year-old girl who had suffered poor weight gain, irritability and progressively worsening abnormal eye movements since approximately 2 months of age. Radiographic studies at 6 months of age (age at initial presentation) revealed a large hypothalamic lesion occupying proximal portions of the optic nerves, chiasm and right posterior optic tract. The first biopsy obtained after two chemotherapy regimens was consistent with a diagnosis of PMA. The patient suffered multiple recurrences, and underwent three subsequent surgical procedures. The last two surgical specimens revealed a tumor with histopathological features of PA. She is alive with residual disease 6 years after initial presentation. While earlier studies focused on the similarities between PA and PMA, considering the latter as the "infantile" form of the former, subsequent work outlined their histological and clinical differences. Some even suggested a different cell type, such as the tanycytic cell as the origin for PMA. This report provides evidence in favor of the earlier argument that there is a close relationship between PA and PMA, and presents a rare "maturation" phenomenon, at least from a morphological perspective. More systematic review of such cases will provide a better answer for the origin of PMA, and its relation to PA.