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.)

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy., Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority =0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority =0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; p non-inferiority <0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days., Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy., Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MAH received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ethicon, Medtronic, and Intuitive Surgical. MGB received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ethicon, Medtronic, OncoSil, and Intuitive Surgical. DJL received a proctoring grant from Intuitive Surgical. GM received personal consulting fees for clinical trial design from OncoSil Medical and participates in the advisory board of OncoSil Medical. CHJvE received a consultancy grant from AIM ImmunoTech. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection., Methods: A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method., Results: Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214)., Conclusions: The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive., (© 2012 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)