Preoperative serum ADAM12 levels as a stromal marker for overall survival and benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the stroma marker A Disintegrin And Metalloprotease 12 (ADAM12) as a preoperative prognostic and treatment-predictive marker for overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and periampullary cancers. METHODS: Materials were derived from the prospective nationwide Dutch Pancreas Biobank (2015-2017). We included patients who underwent resection because of PDAC/periampullary cancer or non-invasive IPMN (control group) and had a preoperative serum sample available. ADAM12 levels were dichotomized using a pre-defined cut-off (316 pg/mL). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses (backward selection) were performed. RESULTS: Median ADAM12 levels were 161 (IQR 79-352) pg/mL in 215 PDAC and periampullary adenocarcinomas. High ADAM12 levels (>316 pg/mL) predicted poor OS in the total group of pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas (P = 0.04), but not after adjustment. In distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 33), high ADAM12 levels predicted poor OS in univariable analysis (P = 0.02), but not in PDAC (P = 0.63). PDAC patients (n = 135) with high ADAM12 levels benefited from adjuvant treatment (median OS 27 vs 14 months, P = 0.02), whereas those with low levels did not (21 vs 21 months, P = 0.87). CONCLUSION: High circulating ADAM12 levels, as a proxy for activated stroma, predict survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in PDAC, requiring validation in future studies.

Core Set of Patient-reported Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer (COPRAC): An International Delphi Study Among Patients and Health Care Providers.

OBJECTIVE: To establish an international core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) selected by both patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) from the United States (US), Europe, and Asia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PROs are increasingly recognized in pancreatic cancer studies. There is no consensus on which of the many available PROs are most important. METHODS: A multicenter Delphi study among patients with pancreatic cancer (curative- and palliative-setting) and HCPs in 6 pancreatic centers in the US (Baltimore, Boston), Europe (Amsterdam, Verona), and Asia (Mumbai, Seoul) was performed. In round 1, participants rated the importance of 56 PROs on a 1 to 9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (scores 7-9) by the majority (≥80%) of curative- and/or palliative-patients as well as HCPs were included in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria were presented again in round 2, together with feedback on individual and group ratings. Remaining PROs were ranked based on the importance ratings. RESULTS: In total 731 patients and HCPs were invited, 501 completed round 1, and 420 completed both rounds. This included 204 patients in curative-setting, 74 patients in palliative-setting, and 142 HCPs. After 2 rounds, 8 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, ability to work/do usual activities, fear of recurrence, satisfaction with services/care organization, abdominal complaints, and relationship with partner/family. CONCLUSIONS: This international Delphi study among patients and HCPs established a core set of PROs in pancreatic cancer, which should facilitate the design of future pancreatic cancer trials and outcomes research.

Nutritional support and therapy in pancreatic surgery: A position paper of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

BACKGROUND: The optimal nutritional therapy in the field of pancreatic surgery is still debated. METHODS: An international panel of recognized pancreatic surgeons and pancreatologists decided that the topic of nutritional support was of importance in pancreatic surgery. Thus, they reviewed the best contemporary literature and worked to develop a position paper to provide evidence supporting the integration of appropriate nutritional support into the overall management of patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were based on the approach of the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: The measurement of nutritional status should be part of routine preoperative assessment because malnutrition is a recognized risk factor for surgery-related complications. In addition to patient's weight loss and body mass index, measurement of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity should be considered in the preoperative evaluation because they are strong predictors of poor short-term and long-term outcomes. The available data do not show any definitive nutritional advantages for one specific type of gastrointestinal reconstruction technique after pancreatoduodenectomy over the others. Postoperative early resumption of oral intake is safe and should be encouraged within enhanced recovery protocols, but in the case of severe postoperative complications or poor tolerance of oral food after the operation, supplementary artificial nutrition should be started at once. At present, there is not enough evidence to show the benefit of avoiding oral intake in clinically stable patients who are complicated by a clinically irrelevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (a so-called biochemical leak), while special caution should be given to feeding patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula orally. When an artificial nutritional support is needed, enteral nutrition is preferred whenever possible over parenteral nutrition. After the operation, regardless of the type of pancreatic resection or technique of reconstruction, patients should be monitored carefully to assess for the presence of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Although fecal elastase-1 is the most readily available clinical test for detection of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, its sensitivity and specificity are low. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy should be initiated routinely after pancreatoduodenectomy and in patients with locally advanced disease and continued for at least 6 months after surgery, because untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may result in severe nutritional derangement. CONCLUSION: The importance of this position paper is the consensus reached on the topic. Concentrating on nutritional support and therapy is of utmost value in pancreatic surgery for both short- and long-term outcomes.

The Dutch Pancreas Biobank Within the Parelsnoer Institute: A Nationwide Biobank of Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Large biobanks with uniform collection of biomaterials and associated clinical data are essential for translational research. The Netherlands has traditionally been well organized in multicenter clinical research on pancreatic diseases, including the nationwide multidisciplinary Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group and Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. To enable high-quality translational research on pancreatic and periampullary diseases, these groups established the Dutch Pancreas Biobank. METHODS: The Dutch Pancreas Biobank is part of the Parelsnoer Institute and involves all 8 Dutch university medical centers and 5 nonacademic hospitals. Adult patients undergoing pancreatic surgery (all indications) are eligible for inclusion. Preoperative blood samples, tumor tissue from resected specimens, pancreatic cyst fluid, and follow-up blood samples are collected. Clinical parameters are collected in conjunction with the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and May 2017, 488 patients were included in the first 5 participating centers: 4 university medical centers and 1 nonacademic hospital. Over 2500 samples were collected: 1308 preoperative blood samples, 864 tissue samples, and 366 follow-up blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective collection of biomaterials and associated clinical data has started in the Dutch Pancreas Biobank. Subsequent translational research will aim to improve treatment decisions based on disease characteristics.

Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

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.

Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer: A Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are amongst the most relevant outcome measures in pancreatic cancer care and research. However, it is unknown which out of the numerous PROs are most important to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in this setting. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of PROs to be incorporated in a nationwide prospective multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a two-round Delphi survey among 150 patients diagnosed with pancreatic or periampullary cancer (treated either with curative intent or in palliative setting) and 78 HCPs (surgeons, medical oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiotherapists, nurses, and dietitians) in The Netherlands. In round 1, participants were invited to rate the importance of 53 PROs, which were extracted from 17 different PRO measures and grouped into global domains, on a 1-9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (score 7-9) by the majority (≥ 80%) of curative and/or palliative patients as well as HCPs were considered sufficiently important to be incorporated in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria in round 1 were presented again to the participants in round 2 along with individual and group feedback. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients (94%) in curative-intent setting, 38 patients (81%) in palliative setting and 73 HCPs (94%) completed both rounds 1 and 2. After the first round, 7 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, satisfaction with caregivers, satisfaction with services and care organisation, coping and defecation. After the second round, 10 additional PROs were added: appetite, ability to work/do usual activities, medication use, weight changes, fatigue, negative feelings, positive feelings, fear of recurrence, relationship with partner/family, and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy use. CONCLUSION: This study provides a core set of PROs selected by patients and HCPs, which may be incorporated in pancreatic cancer care and research. Validation outside the Dutch context is recommended for generalisation and use in international studies.

Electromagnetic-Guided Versus Endoscopic Placement of Nasojejunal Feeding Tubes After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: An altered anatomy such as after pancreatoduodenectomy is currently seen as relative contraindication for bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided nasojejunal feeding tube placement. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes as compared with endoscopy in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We performed a prospective monocenter pilot study in patients requiring enteral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy (July 2012-March 2014). Primary end point was the success rate of primary tube placement confirmed on plain abdominal x-ray followed by successful enteral feeding. RESULTS: Overall, 53 (42%) of 126 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy required a nasojejunal feeding tube, of which 36 were placed under EM guidance and, in 17, it was placed by endoscopy. Initial tube placement was successful in 21 (58%) of 36 patients with EM guidance and 9 (53%) of 17 patients with endoscopy (P = 0.71). No complications occurred during the placement procedures. Dislodgement and/or blockage of the tube occurred in 14 (39%) of 36 patients in the EM-guided group and 8 (47%) of 17 patients in the endoscopic group (P = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes by nurses was equally successful as endoscopic placement in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Feeding patients with preoperative symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy: Early oral or routine nasojejunal tube feeding?

BACKGROUND: Early oral feeding is currently considered the optimal routine feeding strategy after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Some have suggested that patients with preoperative symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) who undergo PD have such a high risk of developing delayed gastric emptying that these patients should rather receive routine postoperative tube feeding. The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical outcomes after PD in these patients differ between postoperative early oral feeding and routine tube feeding. METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive multicenter cohort of patients with preoperative symptoms of GOO undergoing PD (2010-2013). Patients were categorized into two groups based on the applied postoperative feeding strategy (dependent on their center's routine strategy): early oral feeding or routine nasojejunal tube feeding. RESULTS: Of 497 patients undergoing PD, 83 (17%) suffered from preoperative symptoms of GOO. 49 patients received early oral feeding and 29 patients received routine tube feeding. Time to resumption of adequate oral intake (primary outcome; 14 vs. 12 days, p = 0.61) did not differ between these two feeding strategies. Furthermore, overall complications and length of stay were similar in both groups. Of the patients receiving early oral feeding, 24 (49%) ultimately required postoperative tube feeding. In patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course, early oral feeding was associated with shorter time to adequate oral intake (8 vs. 12 days, p = 0.008) and shorter hospital stay (9 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Also in patients with preoperative symptoms of GOO, early oral feeding can be considered the routine feeding strategy after PD.

Diagnostic value of a pancreatic mass on computed tomography in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for presumed pancreatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that 5-14% of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy ultimately are diagnosed with benign disease. A "pancreatic mass" on computed tomography (CT) is considered to be the strongest predictor of malignancy, but studies describing its diagnostic value are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of a pancreatic mass on CT in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer, as well as the interobserver agreement among radiologists and the additional value of reassessment by expert-radiologists. METHODS: Reassessment of preoperative CT scans was performed within a previously described multicenter retrospective cohort study in 344 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy (2003-2010). Preoperative CT scans were reassessed by 2 experienced abdominal radiologists separately and subsequently in a consensus meeting, after defining a pancreatic mass as "a measurable space occupying soft tissue density, except for an enlarged papilla or focal steatosis". RESULTS: CT scans of 86 patients with benign and 258 patients with (pre)malignant disease were reassessed. In 66% of patients a pancreatic mass was reported in the original CT report, versus 48% and 50% on reassessment by the 2 expert radiologists separately and 44% in consensus (P < .001 vs original report). Interobserver agreement between the original CT report and expert consensus was fair (kappa = 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.42). Among both expert-radiologists agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.56), with disagreement on the presence of a pancreatic mass in 29% of cases. The specificity for malignancy of pancreatic masses identified in expert consensus was twice as high compared with the original CT report (87% vs 42%, respectively). Positive predictive value increased to 98% after expert consensus, but negative predictive value was low (12%). CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to be aware of potential considerable disagreement among radiologists about the presence of a pancreatic mass. The specificity for malignancy doubled by expert radiologist reassessment when a uniform definition of "pancreatic mass" was used.

Electromagnetic guided bedside or endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients (CORE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Systematic review on bedside electromagnetic-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.

BACKGROUND: Nasoenteral tube feeding is frequently required in hospitalized patients to either prevent or treat malnutrition, but data on the optimal strategy of tube placement are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding. INTERVENTIONS: EM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Success rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 354 screened articles, 28 studies were included. Data on 4056 patients undergoing EM-guided (n = 2921), endoscopic (n = 730), and/or fluoroscopic (n = 405) nasoenteral feeding tube placement were extracted. Tube placement was successful in 3202 of 3789 (85%) EM-guided procedures compared with 706 of 793 (89%) endoscopic and 413 of 446 (93%) fluoroscopic procedures. Reinsertion rates were similar for EM-guidance (270 of 1279 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (64 of 394 [16%] patients) or fluoroscopy (10 of 38 [26%] patients). The mean (standard deviation) procedure time was shortest with EM-guided placement (13.4 [12.9] minutes), followed by endoscopy and fluoroscopy (14.9 [8.7] and 16.2 [23.6] minutes, respectively). Procedure-related adverse events were infrequent (0.4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively) and included mainly epistaxis. The tube-related adverse event rate was lowest in the EM-guided group (36 of 242 [15%] patients), followed by fluoroscopy (40 of 191 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (115 of 384 [30%] patients) and included mainly dislodgment and blockage of the tube. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies. CONCLUSION: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes appears to be as safe and effective as fluoroscopic or endoscopic placement. EM-guided tube placement by nurses may be preferred over more costly procedures performed by endoscopists or radiologists, but randomized studies are lacking.

Endoscopic versus bedside electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Nasoenteral tube feeding is often required in surgical patients, mainly because of delayed gastric emptying. Bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided tube placement by specialized nurses might offer several advantages (e.g., reduced patient discomfort and costs) over conventional endoscopic placement. The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of EM-guided to endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 267 adult patients admitted to two gastrointestinal surgical wards who received a nasoenteral feeding tube by EM-guidance or endoscopy. Eighteen patients were excluded because of insufficient data. Patients were categorized according to the primary tube placement method. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary endpoint was successful tube placement at or beyond the duodenojejunal flexure. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included, of which 90 patients underwent EM-guided and 159 patients underwent endoscopic tube placement. Both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. Primary tube placement was successful in 74/90 patients (82 %) in the EM-guided group versus 140/159 patients (88 %) in the endoscopic group (P = 0.20). In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates were significantly lower in the EM-guided group (58 vs. 86 %, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in tube-related complications such as dislodgement or tube blockage. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by specialized nurses did not differ from endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists regarding feasibility and safety in surgical patients with unaltered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.

Preoperative characteristics of patients with presumed pancreatic cancer but ultimately benign disease: a multicenter series of 344 pancreatoduodenectomies.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative differentiation between malignant and benign pancreatic tumors can be difficult. Consequently, a proportion of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy will ultimately have benign disease. The aim of this study was to compare preoperative clinical and diagnostic characteristics of patients with unexpected benign disease after pancreatoduodenectomy with those of patients with confirmed (pre)malignant disease. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 1,629 consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy between 2003 and 2010 in 11 Dutch centers. Preoperative characteristics were compared in a benign:malignant ratio of 1:3. Malignant cases were selected from the entire cohort by using a random number list. A multivariable logistic regression prediction model was constructed to predict benign disease. RESULTS: Of 107 patients (6.6 %) with unexpected benign disease after pancreatoduodenectomy, 86 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were compared with 258 patients with (pre)malignant disease. Patients with benign disease presented more often with pain (56 vs. 38 %; P = 0.004), but less frequently with jaundice (60 vs. 80 %; P < 0.01), a pancreatic mass (13 vs. 54 %, P < 0.001), or a double duct sign on computed tomography (21 vs. 47 %; P < 0.001). In a prediction model using these parameters, only 19 % of patients with benign disease were correctly predicted, and 1.4 % of patients with malignant disease were missed. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 7 % of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy were ultimately diagnosed with benign disease. Although some preoperative clinical and imaging characteristics might indicate absence of malignancy, their discriminatory value is insufficient for clinical use.

Early oral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy enhances recovery without increasing morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a change in the routine feeding strategy applied after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) from nasojejunal tube (NJT) feeding to early oral feeding improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed in 102 consecutive patients undergoing PD. In period 1 (n = 51, historical controls), the routine postoperative feeding strategy was NJT feeding. This was changed to a protocol of early oral feeding with on-demand NJT feeding in period 2 (n = 51, consecutive prospective cohort). The primary outcome was time to resumption of adequate oral intake. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of study subjects in both periods were comparable. In period 1, 98% (n = 50) of patients received NJT feeding, whereas in period 2, 53% (n = 27) of patients did so [for delayed gastric empting (DGE) (n = 20) or preoperative malnutrition (n = 7)]. The time to resumption of adequate oral intake significantly decreased from 12 days in period 1 to 9 days in period 2 (P = 0.015), and the length of hospital stay shortened from 18 days in period 1 to 13 days in period 2 (P = 0.015). Overall, there were no differences in the incidences of complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III or higher, DGE, pancreatic fistula, postoperative haemorrhage and mortality between the two periods. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an early oral feeding strategy after PD reduced the time to resumption of adequate oral intake and length of hospital stay without negatively impacting postoperative morbidity.

Evaluation of gastrectomy in patients with delayed gastric emptying after antireflux surgery or large hiatal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Revision antireflux surgery and large hiatal hernia repair require extensive dissection at the gastroesophageal junction. This may lead to troublesome symptoms due to delayed gastric emptying, eventually requiring gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomy for severely delayed gastric emptying after large hiatal hernia repair or redo antireflux surgery. METHODS: Eleven patients were treated between 1995 and 2010 and entered in the study. Preoperative and operative data were retrospectively collected. Standardized questionnaires were sent to all of the patients to evaluate symptomatic outcome. RESULTS: The primary intervention was Nissen fundoplication in nine patients, Toupet fundoplication in one, and cruroplasty in another. The repairs were for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease in five patients and a symptomatic large hiatal hernia in six. Subsequent gastrectomy was partial in four patients, subtotal in six, and total in one. There was one minor postoperative complication. After a mean (±SD) duration of 102 ± 59 months, nine patients were available for symptomatic follow-up. Eight patients experienced daily symptoms related to dumping. Daily symptoms indicative of delayed gastric emptying were present in seven patients at follow-up. Mean general quality of life was increased from 3.8 ± 2.2 before gastrectomy to 5.4 ± 1.8 at follow-up. Eight patients reported gastrectomy as worthwhile. CONCLUSION: Gastrectomy after previous antireflux surgery or large hiatal hernia repair is safe with the potential to improve quality of life. Although upper gastrointestinal symptoms tend to persist, gastrectomy can be considered a reasonable, last-resort surgical option for alleviating upper gastrointestinal symptoms after this kind of surgery.

Efficacy and complications of nasojejunal, jejunostomy and parenteral feeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: European nutritional guidelines recommend routine use of enteral feeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) whereas American guidelines do not. Data on the efficacy and, especially, complications of the various feeding strategies after PD are scarce. METHODS: Retrospective monocenter cohort study in 144 consecutive patients who underwent PD during a period wherein the routine post-PD feeding strategy changed twice. Patients not receiving nutritional support (n=15) were excluded. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definitions. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Primary endpoint was the time to resumption of normal oral intake. RESULTS: 129 patients undergoing PD (111 pylorus preserving) were included. 44 patients (34%) received enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube (NJT), 48 patients (37%) via jejunostomy tube (JT) and 37 patients (29%) received total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Groups were comparable with respect to baseline characteristics, Clavien ≥II complications (P=0.99), in-hospital stay (P=0.83) and mortality (P=0.21). There were no differences in time to resumption of normal oral intake (primary endpoint; NJT/JT/TPN: median 13, 16 and 14 days, P=0.15) and incidence of delayed gastric emptying (P=0.30). Duration of enteral nutrition was shorter in the NJT- compared to the JT- group (median 8 vs. 12 days, P=0.02). Tube related complications occurred mainly in the NJT-group (34% dislodgement). In the JT-group, relaparotomy was performed in three patients (6%) because of JT-leakage or strangulation leading to death in one patient (2%). Wound infections were most common in the TPN group (NJT/JT/TPN: 16%, 6% and 30%, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: None of the analysed feeding strategies was found superior with respect to time to resumption of normal oral intake, morbidity and mortality. Each strategy was associated with specific complications. Nasojejunal tubes dislodged in a third of patients, jejunostomy tubes caused few but potentially life-threatening bowel strangulation and TPN doubled the risk of infections.