Search

Background: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. Materials and Methods: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade = 3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Results: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of =20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 (P=0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. Conclusion: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30–50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort. Methods: This nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: A total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68–0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64–0.74). Conclusion: The current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Historically, patients with pancreatic ductal adenoma carcinoma were subjected to immediate surgical resection of the pancreatic tumor. Nowadays, more and more patients are treated with chemo(radio)therapy before surgical resection. It is known that patients with pancreatic cancer have a high risk of developing thrombosis. However, as patients underwent immediate surgery before, the incidence of thrombosis in patients with pancreatic cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy is understudied. Few studies have investigated the VTE incidence in this population and it is unclear whether these patients should use perioperative thromboprophylaxis to prevent thrombosis. This narrative review summarizes the evidence that is currently available. Recent studies have shown that patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery have an improved outcome compared to patients treated with upfront surgery. Hence, patients with PDAC are more and more frequently treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. PDAC patients are at a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is associated with decreased survival rates. As patients with PDAC were historically offered immediate surgical resection, data on VTE incidence and associated preoperative risk factors are scarce. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic anticoagulation in selected groups of patients with advanced PDAC. However, recommendations for patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting are lacking. Nevertheless, the prevention of complications is crucial to maintain the best possible condition for surgery. This narrative review summarizes current literature on VTE incidence, associated risk factors, risk assessment tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis in PDAC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Intraoperative visualization of pancreatic tumors has the potential to improve radical resection rates. Intraoperative visualization of the common bile duct and bile duct anastomoses could be of added value. In this study, we explored the use of indocyanine green (ICG) for these applications and attempted to optimize injection timing and dose. Methods: Eight patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy were injected intravenously with 5 or 10 mg ICG. During and after injection, the pancreas, tumor, common bile duct and surrounding organs were imaged in real time using the Mini-FLARE™ near-infrared (NIR) imaging system. Results: No clear tumor-to-pancreas contrast was observed, except for incidental contrast in 1 patient. The common bile duct was clearly visualized using NIR fluorescence, within 10 min after injection, with a maximal contrast between 30 and 90 min after injection. Patency of biliary anastomoses could be visualized due to biliary excretion of ICG. Conclusion: No useful tumor demarcation could be visualized in pancreatic cancer patients after intravenous injection of ICG. However, the common bile duct and biliary anastomoses were clearly visualized during the observation period. Therefore, these imaging strategies could be beneficial during biliary surgery in cases where the surgical anatomy is aberrant or difficult to identify. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Left-sided pancreatic cancer is associated with worse overall survival (OS) compared with right-sided pancreatic cancer. Although neoadjuvant therapy is currently seen as not effective in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC), current randomized trials included mostly patients with right-sided RPC. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between neoadjuvant therapy and OS in patients with left-sided RPC compared with upfront surgery., Patients and Methods: This was an international multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for pathology-proven RPC, either after neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery in 76 centers from 18 countries on 4 continents (2013-2019). The primary endpoint was OS from diagnosis. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was carried out to investigate the association of neoadjuvant therapy with OS, adjusting for confounders at the time of diagnosis. Adjusted OS probabilities were calculated., Results: Overall, 2282 patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for RPC were included of whom 290 patients (13%) received neoadjuvant therapy. The most common neoadjuvant regimens were (m)FOLFIRINOX (38%) and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (22%). After upfront surgery, 72% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, mostly a single-agent regimen (74%). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged OS compared with upfront surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.83) with an adjusted median OS of 53 versus 37 months (P = 0.0003) and adjusted 5-year OS rates of 47% versus 35% (P = 0.0001) compared with upfront surgery. Interaction analysis demonstrated a stronger effect of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with a larger tumor (P interaction  = 0.003) and higher serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9; P interaction  = 0.005). In contrast, the effect of neoadjuvant therapy was not enhanced for splenic artery (P interaction  = 0.43), splenic vein (P interaction  = 0.30), retroperitoneal (P interaction  = 0.84), and multivisceral (P interaction  = 0.96) involvement., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy in patients with left-sided RPC was associated with improved OS compared with upfront surgery. The impact of neoadjuvant therapy increased with larger tumor size and higher serum CA19-9 at diagnosis. Randomized controlled trials on neoadjuvant therapy specifically in patients with left-sided RPC are needed., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Spread of disease in the retroperitoneum is dictated by the complex anatomy of retroperitoneal fasciae and is still incompletely understood. Conflicting reports have led to insufficient and incorrect anatomical concepts in radiological literature., Methods: This review will discuss previous concepts prevalent in radiological literature and their shortcomings will be highlighted. New insights from recent anatomical and embryological research, together with imaging examples, will be used to clarify patterns of disease spread in the retroperitoneum that remain unexplained by these concepts., Results: The fusion fascia and the renal fascia in particular give rise to planes and spaces that act as vectors for spread of disease in the retroperitoneum. Some of these planes and structures, such as the caudal extension of the renal fascia, have previously not been described in radiological literature., Conclusion: New insights, including the various fasciae, potential spaces and planes, are incorporated into an updated combined retroperitoneal fascial concept., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) has emerged as an innovative technique with promising applications in various surgical specialties. However, clinical implementation is hampered by limited availability of evidence-based reference work supporting the translation towards standard-of-care use in surgical practice. Therefore, we developed a consensus statement on current applications of FGS., Methods: During an international FGS course, participants anonymously voted on 36 statements. Consensus was defined as agreement ≥70% with participation grade of ≥80%. All participants of the questionnaire were stratified for user and handling experience within five domains of applicability (lymphatics & lymph node imaging; tissue perfusion; biliary anatomy and urinary tracts; tumor imaging in colorectal, HPB, and endocrine surgery, and quantification and (tumor-) targeted imaging). Results were pooled to determine consensus for each statement within the respective sections based on the degree of agreement., Results: In total 43/52 (81%) course participants were eligible as voting members for consensus, comprising the expert panel (n = 12) and trained users (n = 31). Consensus was achieved in 17 out of 36 (45%) statements with highest level of agreement for application of FGS in tissue perfusion and biliary/urinary tract visualization (71% and 67%, respectively) and lowest within the tumor imaging section (0%)., Conclusions: FGS is currently established for tissue perfusion and vital structure imaging. Lymphatics & lymph node imaging in breast cancer and melanoma are evolving, and tumor tissue imaging holds promise in early-phase trials. Quantification and (tumor-)targeted imaging are advancing toward clinical validation. Additional research is needed for tumor imaging due to a lack of consensus., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Statement: One author has disclosed the following potential conflicts of interest: S. Gioux (SG) is a full-time employee of Intuitive Surgical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether sublingual sufentanil tablet (SST) is a non-inferior analgesic compared to our standard-of-care (patient-controlled epidural analgesia [PCEA] or PCA morphine) in the treatment of pain following pancreatoduodenectomy., Methods: This was a pragmatic, strategy, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel group, randomized (1:1) trial. The primary outcome was an overall mean pain score (Numerical Rating Scale: 0-10) on postoperative days 1 to 3 combined. The non-inferiority margin was -1.5 since this difference was considered clinically relevant., Results: Between October 2018 and July 2021, 190 patients were assessed for eligibility and 36 patients were included in the final analysis: 17 patients were randomized to SST and 19 patients to standard-of-care. Early treatment failure in the SST group occurred in 2 patients (12%) due to inability to operate the SST system and in 2 patients (12%) due to severe nausea despite antiemetics. Early treatment failure in the standard-of-care group occurred in 2 patients (11%) due to preoperative PCEA placement failure and in 1 patient (5%) due to hemodynamic instability caused by PCEA. The mean difference in pain score on postoperative day 1 to 3 was -0.10 (95% CI -0.72-0.52), and therefore the non-inferiority of SST compared to standard-of-care was demonstrated. The mean pain score, number of patients reporting unacceptable pain (pain score >4), Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score, and patient satisfaction per postoperative day, perioperative hemodynamics and postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between groups., Conclusion: This first randomized study investigating the use of SST in 36 patients following pancreatoduodenectomy showed that SST is non-inferior compared to our standard-of-care in the treatment of pain on postoperative days 1 to 3. Future research is needed to confirm that these findings are applicable to other settings., Competing Interests: AD received an educational grant and speaker fees from Grunenthal BV (the Netherlands); grants from MSD, personal fees from Grunenthal, grants from Medasense, grants, personal fees from Enalare, grants from Takeda, grants from AMO Pharma, grants from ZonMW, grants from FDA, grants from LTS Lohmann, grants from Bedrocan, outside the submitted work. Dr Monique van Velzen reports grants from Grunenthal, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Groen et al.)

Background: The optimal treatment sequence for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess factors associated with the use of simultaneous resections and impact on hospital variation., Method: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver surgery for synchronous colorectal liver metastases between 2014 and 2019 in the Netherlands. Factors associated with simultaneous resection were identified. Short-term surgical outcomes of simultaneous resections and factors associated with 30-day major morbidity were evaluated., Results: Of 2146 patients included, 589 (27%) underwent simultaneous resection in 28 hospitals. Simultaneous resection was associated with age, sex, BMI, number, size and bilobar distribution of CRLM, and administration of preoperative chemotherapy. More minimally invasive and minor resections were performed in the simultaneous group. Hospital variation was present (range 2.4%-83.3%) with several hospitals performing simultaneous procedures more and less frequently than expected. Simultaneous resection resulted in 13% 30-day major morbidity, and 1% mortality. ASA classification ≥3 was independently associated with higher 30-day major morbidity after simultaneous resection (aOR 1.97, CI 1.10-3.42, p = 0.018)., Conclusion: Distinctive patient and tumour characteristics influence the choice for simultaneous resection. Remarkable hospital variation is present in the Netherlands., (Copyright © 2021 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)