Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher. METHODS: An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651). CONCLUSION: In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

How to Predict Postoperative Complications After Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: the Chole-Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) is the gold standard treatment for patients with acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC); however, it is still related to significant postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and develop a preoperative score able to predict them. METHODS: Multicentric retrospective analysis of 1868 patients with ACC submitted to ELC. Included patients were divided into two groups according to the presentation of increased postoperative complications defined as postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo IIIa, length of stay greater than 10 days and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Variables that were independently predictive of increased postoperative complications were combined determining the Chole-Risk Score, which was validated through a correlation analysis. RESULTS: We included 282 (15.1%) patients with postoperative complications. The multivariate analysis predictors of increased morbidity were previous percutaneous cholecystostomy (OR 2.95, p=0.001), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.57, p=0.031) and diabetes (OR 1.62, p=0.005); Charlson Comorbidity Index >6 (OR 2.48, p=0.003), increased total bilirubin > 2 mg/dL (OR 1.88, p=0.002), dilated bile duct (OR 1.79, p=0.027), perforated gallbladder (OR 2.62, p<0.001) and severity grade (OR 1.93, p=0.001). The Chole-Risk Score was generated by grouping these variables into four categories, with scores ranging from 0 to 4. It presented a progressive increase in postoperative complications ranging from 5.8% of patients scoring 0 to 47.8% of patients scoring 4 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The Chole-Risk Score represents an intuitive tool capable of predicting postoperative complications in patients with ACC.