Search

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: 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.)

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: 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.)