Search

Background: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry., Patients and Methods: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups., Results: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times., Conclusion: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign liver tumors associated with bleeding or malignant transformation. Data on the indication for surgery are scarce. We analyzed indications and outcome of patients operated for HCAs < 50 mm compared to HCAs ≥ 50 mm. Changes in final postoperative diagnosis were assessed. We performed a retrospective study that included patients who underwent resection for (suspected) HCAs in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019. Indication for resection was analyzed and stratified for small (<50 mm) and large (≥50 mm) tumors. Logistic regression analysis was performed on factors influencing change in tumor diagnosis. Out of 222 patients who underwent surgery, 44 (20%) patients had a tumor <50 mm. Median age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-56) years in patients with small tumors and 37 (IQR, 31-46) years in patients with large tumors ( p  = 0.016). Patients with small tumors were more frequently men (21% vs. 5%, p  = 0.002). Main indications for resection in patients with small tumors were suspicion of (pre)malignancy (55%), (previous) bleeding (14%), and male sex (11%). Patients with large tumors received operations because of tumor size >50 mm (52%), suspicion of (pre)malignancy (28%), and (previous) bleeding (5.1%). No difference was observed in HCA-subtype distribution between small and large tumors. Ninety-six (43%) patients had a postoperative change in diagnosis. Independent risk factors for change in diagnosis were tumor size <50 mm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.4; p  < 0.01), male sex (aOR, 3.7; p  = 0.03), and lack of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) (aOR, 1.8; p  = 0.04). Resection for small (suspected) HCAs was mainly indicated by suspicion of (pre)malignancy, whereas for large (suspected) HCAs, tumor size was the most prevalent indication. Male sex, tumor size <50 mm, and lack of hepatobiliary CE-MRI were independent risk factors for postoperative change in tumor diagnosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)