Retromesenteric omental flap as arterial coverage in pancreaticoduodenectomy: A novel technique to prevent postpancreatectomy hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage occurs in 10% to 15% of patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy, mainly in association with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Prevention of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage by arterial coverage with a round ligament plasty or an omental flap is controversial. This study assessed the impact of arterial coverage with an original retromesenteric omental flap on postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included 812 open pancreaticoduodenectomies (2012-2021) and compared 146 procedures with arterial coverage using retromesenteric omental flap to 666 pancreaticoduodenectomies without arterial coverage. The Fistula Risk Score was calculated. The primary endpoint was a 90-day clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage rate according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery classification. RESULTS: There were more patients with a Fistula Risk Score ≥7 in the arterial coverage-retromesenteric omental flap group: 18 (12%) versus 48 (7%) (P < .01). Clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage was less frequent in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group than in the no arterial coverage group: 5 (3%) versus 66 (10%), respectively (P = .01). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 28 (19%) patients in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group compared with 165 (25%) in the no arterial coverage group (P = .001). There were fewer reoperations for postpancreatectomy hemorrhage or postoperative pancreatic fistula in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group: 1 (0.7%) versus 32 (5%) in the no arterial coverage group (P = .023). In multivariate analysis, arterial coverage with retromesenteric omental flap was an independent protective factor of clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (odds ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval [0.12-0.92], P = .034) whereas postoperative pancreatic fistula of any grade (odds ratio = 10.1; 95% confidence interval: 5.1-20.3, P < .001) was predictive of this complication. CONCLUSION: Arterial coverage with retromesenteric omental flap can reduce rates of clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. This easy and costless technique should be prospectively evaluated to confirm these results.

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.

Abdominal surgery in patients with chronic noncirrhotic extra hepatic portal vein obstruction: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: In patients with noncirrhotic chronic extra-hepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO), data on morbimortality of abdominal surgery are scarce. APPROACH RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 76 patients (78 interventions) with EHPVO undergoing abdominal surgery within the VALDIG network. Fourteen percent of the patients had ≥1 major bleeding (unrelated to portal hypertension) and 21% had ≥1 Dindo-Clavien grade ≥3 postoperative complication within 1 month after surgery. Fifteen percent had ≥1 portal hypertension related complication within 3 months after surgery. Three patients died within 12 months after surgery. An unfavorable outcome (i.e. ≥1 above-mentioned complications or death) occurred in 37% of the patients and was associated with a history of ascites and with non-wall, non-cholecystectomy surgical intervention: 17% of the patients with none of these features had an unfavorable outcome, versus 48% and 100% when one or both features were present, respectively. We then compared 63/76 EHPVO patients with 126 matched (2:1) control patients without EHPVO but with similar surgical interventions. As compared with control patients, incidence of major bleeding (p<0.001) and portal-hypertension related complication (p<0.001) was significantly higher in patients with EHPVO, but not that of grade ≥3 postoperative complication nor of death. The incidence of unfavorable post-operative outcome was significantly higher in patients with EHPVO than in those without (33% vs. 18%, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with EHPVO are at high-risk of major peri- or postoperative bleeding and postoperative complications, especially in those with ascites or undergoing surgery other than wall surgery or cholecystectomy.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Toward a new paradigm of care: a surgical leaders' Delphi consensus on the organizational factors of the new pancreas units (E-AHPBA PUECOF study).

Pancreas units represent new organizational models of care that are now at the center of the European debate. The PUECOF study, endorsed by the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), aims to reach an expert consensus by enquiring surgical leaders about the Pancreas Units' most relevant organizational factors, with 30 surgical leaders from 14 countries participating in the Delphi survey. Results underline that surgeons believe in the need to organize multidisciplinary meetings, nurture team leadership, and create metrics. Clinical professionals and patients are considered the most relevant stakeholders, while the debate is open when considering different subjects like industry leaders and patient associations. Non-technical skills such as ethics, teamwork, professionalism, and leadership are highly considered, with mentoring, clinical cases, and training as the most appreciated facilitating factors. Surgeons show trust in functional leaders, key performance indicators, and the facilitating role played by nurse navigators and case managers. Pancreas units have a high potential to improve patients' outcomes. While the pancreas unit model of care will not change the technical content of pancreatic surgery, it may bring surgeons several benefits, including more cases, professional development, easier coordination, less stress, and opportunities to create fruitful connections with research institutions and industry leaders.

Distal Pancreatectomy for Body Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Is Splenectomy Necessary? A Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The value of splenectomy for body localization (≥ 5 cm from spleen hilum) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (B-PDAC) is uncertain. This study assessed spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) results for B-PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center study included patients who underwent SPDP (Warshaw's technique) or distal splenopancreactomy (DSP) for B-PDAC from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to balance SPDP and DSP patients regarding sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), body mass index (BMI), laparoscopy, pathological features [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/tumor node metastasis classification (TNM)], margins, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (64 male, median age 68 years, median BMI 24 kg/m2) were enrolled with a median follow-up of 63 months (95% CI 52-96 months), including 59 (46%) SPDP and 70 (54%) DSP patients. A total of 39 SPDP patients were matched to 39 DSP patients. SPDP patients had fewer harvested nodes (19 vs 22; p = 0.038) with a similar number of positive nodes (0 vs 0; p = 0.237). R0 margins were achieved similarly in SPDP and DSP patients (75% vs 71%; p = 0.840). SPDP patients were associated with decreased comprehensive complication index (CCI, 8.7 vs 16.6; p = 0.004), rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, 14% vs 29%; p = 0.047), and hospital stay (11 vs 16 days; p < 0.001). SPDP patients experienced similar disease-free survival (DFS, 5 years: 38% vs 32%; p = 0.180) and overall survival (OS, 5 years 54% vs 44%; p = 0.710). After matching, SPDP patients remained associated with lower CCI (p = 0.034) and hospital stay (p = 0.028) while not associated with risks of local recurrence (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.28-2.62; p = 0.781), recurrence (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.61-1.78; p = 0.888), or death (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.68-2.11; p = 0.556). CONCLUSION: SPDP for B-PDAC is associated with less postoperative morbidity than DSP, without impairing oncological outcomes.

The Value of Textbook Outcome in Benchmarking Pancreatoduodenectomy for Nonfunctioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite variable that can define the quality of pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate TO after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PanNETs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent PD for NF-PanNETs (2007-2016) in different centers were included in this retrospective study. TO was defined as the absence of severe postoperative complications and mortality, length of hospital stay ≤ 19 days, R0 resection, and at least 12 lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Overall, 477 patients were included. The TO rate was 32%. Tumor size [odds ratio (OR) 1.696; p = 0.013], a minimally invasive approach (OR 12.896; p = 0.001), and surgical volume (OR 2.062; p = 0.023) were independent predictors of TO. The annual frequency of PDs increased over time as well as the overall rate of TO. At a median follow-up of 44 months, patients who achieved TO had similar disease-free (p = 0.487) and overall survival (p = 0.433) rates compared with patients who did not achieve TO. TO rate in patients with NF-PanNET > 2 cm was 35% versus 27% in patients with NF-PanNET ≤ 2 cm (p = 0.044). Considering only NF-PanNETs > 2 cm, patients with TO and those without TO had comparable 5-year overall survival rates (p = 0.766) CONCLUSIONS: TO is achieved in one-third of patients after PD for NF-PanNETs and is not associated with a benefit in terms of long-term survival.

Outcome and survival were similar with laparoscopic and open pancreatectomy in 102 solid pseudopapillary neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas (SPNP) are rare tumors predominantly in young women. We report the largest single-center cohort study comparing resection of SPNP by laparoscopic approach (LA) and the open approach (OA). METHOD: Between 2001 and 2021, 102 patients (84% women, median age: 30) underwent pancreatectomy for SPNP and were retrospectively studied. Demographic, perioperative, pathological, early and the long-term results were evaluated between patients operated by LA and those by OA. RESULTS: Population included 40 LA and 62 OA. There were no significant differences in demographics data between the groups. A preoperative biopsy by endoscopic ultrasound was performed in 45 patients (44%) with no difference between the groups. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was less frequently performed by LA (25 vs 53%, p = 0.004) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) was more frequently performed by LA (40 vs 16%, p = 0.003). In the subgroup analysis by surgical procedure, LA-PD was associated with one mortality, less median blood loss (180 vs 200 ml, p = 0.034) and fewer harvested lymph nodes (11 vs 15, p = 0.02). LA-DP was associated with smaller median tumor size on imaging (40 vs 80mm, p = 0.048), shorter surgery (135 vs 190 min, p = 0.028), and fewer complications according to the median comprehensive complication index score (0 vs 8.7, p = 0.048). LA-Central pancreatectomy was associated with shorter surgery (160 vs 240, p = 0.037), less median blood loss (60 vs 200, p = 0.043), and less harvested lymph nodes (5 vs 2, p = 0.025). After a median follow-up of 60 months, two recurrences (2%) were observed and were unrelated to the approach. CONCLUSIONS: The LA for SPNP appears to be safe, should be applied cautiously in case of PD for large lesion, and was not associated with recurrence.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring of 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. MATERIALS 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 in 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 to LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 minutes,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>25 kg/m2, 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 less conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Intraductal papillary neoplasms of the bile ducts: a comparative study of a rare disease in Europe and Nagoya, Japan.

BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile ducts (IPNB) is a rare disease in Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare tumor characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes between Western and Eastern patients who underwent surgical resection for IPNB. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective series of patients with IPNB undergoing surgery between January 2010 and December 2020 was gathered under the auspices of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), and at Nagoya University Hospital, Japan. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (51% male; median age 66 years) from 28 E-AHPBA centers were compared to 91 patients (64% male; median age 71 years) from Nagoya. Patients in Europe had more multiple lesions (23% vs 2%, P < .001), less invasive carcinoma (42% vs 85%, P < .001), and more intrahepatic tumors (52% vs 24%, P < .001) than in Nagoya. Patients in Europe experienced less 90-day grade >3 Clavien-Dindo complications (33% vs 68%, P < .001), but higher 90-day mortality rate (7.0% vs 0%, P = .03). R0 resections (81% vs 82%) were similar. Overall survival, excluding 90-day postoperative deaths, was similar in both regions. DISCUSSION: Despite performing more extensive resections, the low perioperative mortality rate observed in Nagoya was probably influenced by a combination of patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related factors.

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. RESULTS: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.

Long-term quality of life is better after laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Three randomized controlled trials have reported improved functional recovery after Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Long-term results regarding quality of life (QoL) are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term QoL of LPD versus OPD. METHODS AND PATIENTS: A monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among patients < 75 years old who underwent LPD or OPD for a benign or premalignant pathology in a high-volume center (2011-2021). An electronic three-part questionnaire was sent to eligible patients, including two diseases specific QoL questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and a pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) and a body image questionnaire. Patient demographics and postoperative data were collected and compared between LPD and OPD. RESULTS: Among 948 patients who underwent PD (137 LPD, 811 OPD), 170 were eligible and 111 responded (58 LPD and 53 OPD). LPD versus OPD showed no difference in mean age (51 vs. 55 years, p = 0.199) and female gender (40% vs. 45%, p = 0.631), but LPD showed lower BMI (24 vs 26; p = 0.028) and higher preoperative pancreatitis (29% vs 13%; p = 0.041). The postoperative outcome showed similar Clavien-Dindo ≥ III morbidity (19% vs. 23%; p = 0.343) and length of stay (24 vs. 21 days, p = 0.963). After a similar median follow-up (3 vs. 3 years; p = 0.122), LPD vs OPD patients reported higher QoL (QLQ-C30: 49.6 vs 56.3; p = 0.07), better pancreas specific health status score (PAN20: 50.5 vs 55.5; p = 0.002), physical functioning (p = 0.002), and activities limitations (p = 0.02). Scar scores were better after LPD regarding esthetics (p = 0.001), satisfaction (p = 0.04), chronic pain at rest (p = 0.036), moving (p = 0.011) or in daily activities (p = 0.02). There was no difference in digestive symptoms (p = 0.995). CONCLUSION: This monocentric study found improved long-term QoL in patients undergoing LPD, as compared to OPD, for benign and premalignant diseases. These results could be considered when choosing the surgical approach in these patients.

International survey on opinions and use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: 5-year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey. RESULTS: Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.

Impact of liver cirrhosis, severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension on the difficulty of laparoscopic and robotic minor liver resections for primary liver malignancies in the anterolateral segments.

INTRODUCTION: We performed this study in order to investigate the impact of liver cirrhosis (LC) on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR), focusing on minor resections in anterolateral (AL) segments for primary liver malignancies. METHODS: This was an international multicenter retrospective study of 3675 patients who underwent MILR across 60 centers from 2004 to 2021. RESULTS: 1312 (35.7%) patients had no cirrhosis, 2118 (57.9%) had Child A cirrhosis and 245 (6.7%) had Child B cirrhosis. After propensity score matching (PSM), patients in Child A cirrhosis group had higher rates of open conversion (p = 0.024), blood loss >500 mls (p = 0.001), blood transfusion (p < 0.001), postoperative morbidity (p = 0.004), and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.041). After coarsened exact matching (CEM), Child A cirrhotic patients had higher open conversion rate (p = 0.05), greater median blood loss (p = 0.014) and increased postoperative morbidity (p = 0.001). Compared to Child A cirrhosis, Child B cirrhosis group had longer postoperative stay (p = 0.001) and greater major morbidity (p = 0.012) after PSM, and higher blood transfusion rates (p = 0.002), longer postoperative stay (p < 0.001), and greater major morbidity (p = 0.006) after CEM. After PSM, patients with portal hypertension experienced higher rates of blood loss >500 mls (p = 0.003) and intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: The presence and severity of LC affect and compound the difficulty of MILR for minor resections in the AL segments. These factors should be considered for inclusion into future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies. METHODS: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

Tailoring the Use of Central Pancreatectomy Through Prediction Models for Major Morbidity and Postoperative Diabetes: International Retrospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for major morbidity and endocrine dysfunction after CP which could help in tailoring the use of this procedure. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing alternative to distal pancreatectomy for symptomatic benign and pre-malignant tumors in body and neck of the pancreas CP lowers the risk of new-onset diabetes and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency compared to distal pancreatectomy but it is thought to increase the risk of short-term complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: International multicenter retrospective cohort study including patients from 51 centers in 19 countries (2010-2021). Primary endpoint was major morbidity. Secondary endpoints included POPF grade B/C, endocrine dysfunction, and the use of pancreatic enzymes. Two risk model were designed for major morbidity and endocrine dysfunction utilizing multivariable logistic regression and internal and external validation. RESULTS: 838 patients after CP were included (301 (36%) minimally invasive) and major morbidity occurred in 248 (30%) patients, POPF B/C in 365 (44%), and 30-day mortality in 4 (1%). Endocrine dysfunction in 91 patients (11%) and use of pancreatic enzymes in 108 (12%). The risk model for major morbidity included male sex, age, BMI, and ASA score≥3. The model performed acceptable with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.72(CI:0.68-0.76). The risk model for endocrine dysfunction included higher BMI and male sex and performed well (AUC:0.83 (CI:0.77-0.89)). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed risk models help in tailoring the use of CP in patients with symptomatic benign and premalignant lesions in the body and neck of the pancreas and are readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.