Search

Stefan AW Bouwense,1 Søren S Olesen,2 Asbjørn M Drewes,2 Harry van Goor,1 Oliver HG Wilder-Smith31Pain and Nociception Neuroscience Research Group, Department of Surgery, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2Mech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 3Pain and Nociception Neuroscience Research Group, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsBackground: Pain control in chronic pancreatitis is a major challenge; the mechanisms behind analgesic treatment are poorly understood. This study aims to investigate the differences in pain sensitivity and modulation in chronic pancreatitis patients, based on their clinical response (responders vs nonresponders) to placebo or pregabalin treatment. Methods: This study was part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the analgesic effects of pregabalin and placebo in chronic pancreatitis. Post hoc, patients were assigned to one of four groups, ie, responders and nonresponders to pregabalin (n=16; n=15) or placebo (n=12; n=17) treatment. Responders were defined as patients with >30% pain reduction after 3 weeks of treatment. We measured change in pain sensitivity before and after the treatment using electric pain detection thresholds (ePDT) in dermatomes C5 (generalized effects) and Ventral T10 (segmental effects). Descending endogenous pain modulation was quantified via conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm. Results: Sixty patients were analyzed in a per-protocol analysis. ePDT change in C5 was significant vs baseline and greater in pregabalin (1.3 mA) vs placebo responders (−0.1 mA; P=0.015). This was not so for ePDT in Ventral T10. CPM increased more in pregabalin (9%) vs placebo responders (−17%; P

Importance: Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis and a dilated pancreatic duct can be treated by early surgery or an endoscopy-first approach., Objective: To compare long-term clinical outcomes of early surgery vs an endoscopy-first approach using follow-up data from the ESCAPE randomized clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between April 2011 and September 2018, 88 patients with painful chronic pancreatitis were randomly assigned to early surgery or an endoscopy-first approach in 30 hospitals in the Netherlands collaborating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group as part of the ESCAPE randomized clinical trial. For the present cohort study, long-term clinical data were collected after the initial 18-month follow-up. Follow-up was completed in June 2022, and data analysis was performed in June 2023., Exposure: Patients with chronic pancreatitis were randomly assigned to early surgery or an endoscopy-first approach., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was pain, assessed by the Izbicki pain score; secondary end points included patient-reported complete pain relief and satisfaction. Predefined subgroups included patients who progressed from endoscopy to surgery and those with ductal clearance obtained by endoscopy. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Results: In this cohort study, 86 of 88 overall patients could be evaluated, with a mean (SD) follow-up period of 98 (16) months. Of 88 initial patients, 21 patients (24%) were female, and mean (SD) patient age was 61 (10) years. At the end of long-term follow-up, the mean (SD) Izbicki pain score was significant lower (33 [31] vs 51 [31]) in the early surgery group, as was the rate of patient-reported complete pain relief (14 of 31 patients [45%] vs 6 of 30 patients [20%]), compared to the endoscopy-first group. After the initial 18-month follow-up, 11 of 43 patients in the early surgery group (26%) underwent reinterventions vs 19 of 43 patients in the endoscopy-first group (44%). At the end of follow-up, more patients in the early surgery group were "very satisfied" with their treatment (22 of 31 patients [71%] vs 10 of 30 patients [33%]). Patients who progressed from endoscopy to surgery (22 of 43 patients [51%]) had significantly worse mean (SD) Izbicki pain scores (33 [31] vs 52 [24]) compared to the early surgery group and had a lower rate of complete pain relief (55% for early surgery vs 12% for endoscopy first). In the endoscopy-first group, patients with endoscopic ductal clearance had similar mean (SD) Izbicki pain scores as the remaining patients (49 [34] vs 53 [28])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study evaluating long-term outcomes of the ESCAPE randomized clinical trial, after approximately 8 years of follow-up, early surgery was superior to an endoscopy-first approach in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis and a dilated main pancreatic duct in pain scores and patient satisfaction. Notably, patients who progressed from endoscopy to surgery had worse outcomes compared to patients undergoing early surgery, and obtaining endoscopic ductal clearance did not improve outcomes.

Background: This meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared to conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients aged 70 years or older undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD)., Methods: Five databases were systematically searched. Comparative studies with available individual patient data (IPD) were included. The main outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay, readmission and postoperative functional recovery elements. To assess an age-dependent effect, the group was divided in septuagenarians (70-79 years) and older patients (≥80 years)., Results: IPD were obtained from 15 of 31 eligible studies comprising 1109 patients. The overall complication and major complication rates were comparable in both groups (OR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.65-1.29], p = .596 and OR 1.22 [95% CI: 0.61-2.46], p = .508). Length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the ERAS group compared to the conventional care group (-0.14 days [95% CI: -0.29 to 0.01], p = .071) while readmission rates were comparable and the total length of stay including days in hospital after readmission tended to be shorter in the ERAS group (-0.28 days [95% CI: -0.62 to 0.05], p = .069). In the subgroups, the length of stay was shorter in octogenarians treated with ERAS (-0.36 days [95% CI: -0.71 to -0.004], p = .048). The readmission rate increased slightly but not significantly while the total length of stay was not longer in the ERAS group., Conclusion: ERAS in the elderly is safe and its benefits are preserved in the care of even in patients older than 80 years. Standardized care protocol should be encouraged in all pancreatic centers., (© 2024 Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery.)

Importance: Unintended tumor-positive resection margins occur frequently during minimally invasive surgery for colorectal liver metastases and potentially negatively influence oncologic outcomes., Objective: To assess whether indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescence-guided surgery is associated with achieving a higher radical resection rate in minimally invasive colorectal liver metastasis surgery and to assess the accuracy of ICG fluorescence for predicting the resection margin status., Design, Setting, and Participants: The MIMIC (Minimally Invasive, Indocyanine-Guided Metastasectomy in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases) trial was designed as a prospective single-arm multicenter cohort study in 8 Dutch liver surgery centers. Patients were scheduled to undergo minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) resections of colorectal liver metastases between September 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021., Exposures: All patients received a single intravenous bolus of 10 mg of ICG 24 hours prior to surgery. During surgery, ICG-fluorescence imaging was used as an adjunct to ultrasonography and regular laparoscopy to guide and assess the resection margin in real time. The ICG-fluorescence imaging was performed during and after liver parenchymal transection to enable real-time assessment of the tumor margin. Absence of ICG fluorescence was favorable both during transection and in the tumor bed directly after resection., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the radical (R0) resection rate, defined by the percentage of colorectal liver metastases resected with at least a 1 mm distance between the tumor and resection plane. Secondary outcomes were the accuracy of ICG fluorescence in detecting margin-positive (R1; <1 mm margin) resections and the change in surgical management., Results: In total, 225 patients were enrolled, of whom 201 (116 [57.7%] male; median age, 65 [IQR, 57-72] years) with 316 histologically proven colorectal liver metastases were included in the final analysis. The overall R0 resection rate was 92.4%. Re-resection of ICG-fluorescent tissue in the resection cavity was associated with a 5.0% increase in the R0 percentage (from 87.4% to 92.4%; P < .001). The sensitivity and specificity for real-time resection margin assessment were 60% and 90%, respectively (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.751; 95% CI, 0.668-0.833), with a positive predictive value of 54% and a negative predictive value of 92%. After training and proctoring of the first procedures, participating centers that were new to the technique had a comparable false-positive rate for predicting R1 resections during the first 10 procedures (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.44-4.24). The ICG-fluorescence imaging was associated with changes in intraoperative surgical management in 56 (27.9%) of the patients., Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, ICG-fluorescence imaging was associated with an increased rate of tumor margin-negative resection and changes in surgical management in more than one-quarter of the patients. The absence of ICG fluorescence during liver parenchymal transection predicted an R0 resection with 92% accuracy. These results suggest that use of ICG fluorescence may provide real-time feedback of the tumor margin and a higher rate of complete oncologic resection.

Objective: To determine the nationwide use and outcome of tailored surgical treatment for symptomatic chronic pancreatitis (CP) as advised by recent guidelines., Summary Background Data: Randomized trials have shown that surgery is superior to endoscopy in patients with symptomatic CP, although endoscopy remains popular Recent guidelines advice to "tailor surgery" based on pancreatic morphology meaning that the least extensive procedure should be selected based on pancreatic morphology. However, nationwide, and multicenter studies On tailored surgery for symptomatic CP are lacking., Methods: Nationwide multicenter retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic CP in all seven Dutch university medical centers (2010-2020). Outcomes included volume trend, major complications, 90-day mortality, postoperative opioid use and clinically relevant pain relief. Surgical treatment was tailored based on the size of the main pancreatic duct and pancreatic head (e.g. surgical drainage for a dilated pancreatic duct, and normal size pancreatic head)., Results: Overall, 381 patients underwent surgery for CP: 127 surgical drainage procedures ( 33%; mostly extended lateral pancreaticojejunostomy), 129 duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections (DPPHR, 34%, mostly Frey), and 125 formal pancreatic resections (33%, mostly distal pancreatectomy). The annual surgical volume increased slightly (Pearson r=0.744). Mortality (90-day) occurred in 6 patients (2%), and was non-significantly lower after surgical drainage (0%, 3%, 2%; P =0.139). Major complications (12%, 24%, 26%; P =0.012), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (0%, 3%, 22%; P =0.038), surgical reintervention (4%, 16%, 12%; P =0.006), and endocrine insufficiency ( 14%, 21%, 43%; P <0.001) occurred less often after surgical drainage. After a median follow-up of 11 months [IQR 3-23] good rates of clinically relevant pain relief ( 83%, 69%, 80%; P =0.082) were observed and 81% of opioid users had stopped using (83%, 78%, 84%, P =0.496)., Conclusion: The use of surgery for symptomatic CP increased over the study period. Drainage procedures were associated with the best safety profile and excellent functional outcome, highlighting the importance of tailoring surgery based on pancreatic morphology., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest : The following authors disclosed financial relationships: MGB: grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. MAB grants from Ipsen, New Compliance, Mylan, grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Acelity/KCI, and personal fees from Bard, Gore, Smith & Newphew. All financial relationships were outside the submitted work. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Conflict of interest : no disclosures, (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited., Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs., Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121)., Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MGB reports grants from Intuitive, grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, grants from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; MBo reports grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, grants and personal fees from Acelity/KCI, grants and personal fees from Bard, grants from Ipsen, grants from New Compliance, grants from Mylan, personal fees from Gore, personal fees from Smith & Newphew, outside the submitted work; MBr reports grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Cook Medical, grants from Pentax Medical, grants from Mylan, grants from 3M, grants from InterScope, outside the submitted work; PF reports personal fees from Cook Medical, personal fees from Olympus, personal fees from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, outside the submitted work; J-WP reports personal fees and other from Cook Endoscopy, personal fees and other from Boston Scientific, personal fees and other from Pentax Medical, outside the submitted work; E-JvG reports grants from Mylan, grants from Olympus, personal fees from MTW-Endoskopie, outside the submitted work; JEvH reports personal fees from Olympus Endoscopy, grants from Cook Medical, personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; FV reports grants from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; RPV reports grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, grants from Zambon, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Acute pancreatitis is an unpredictable and potentially lethal disease. The prognosis mainly depends on the development of organ failure and secondary infection of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis. In the past 10 years, treatment of acute pancreatitis has moved towards a multidisciplinary, tailored, and minimally invasive approach. Despite improvements in treatment and critical care, severe acute pancreatitis is still associated with high mortality rates. In this Seminar, we outline the latest evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for acute pancreatitis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP., Methods and Analysis: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months., Ethics and Dissemination: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: After standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16-27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis., Methods: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled 'presumed' IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in 'presumed' IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment., Results: Out of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of 'presumed' IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT ( n  = 124, diagnostic yield 8%), EUS ( n  = 62, yield 35%), MRI/MRCP ( n  = 56, yield 33%), repeat ultrasound ( n  = 97, yield 21%), IgG4 (n = 54, yield 9%) and ERCP ( n  = 15, yield 47%). In 64 of 176 patients (36%) an aetiological diagnosis was established, mostly biliary ( n  = 39). In 13 out of 176 of patients (7%) a neoplasm was diagnosed. If additional diagnostic workup revealed an aetiology, the recurrence rate was lower in the treated patients than in the patients without a definite aetiology (15% versus 43%, p  = 0.014)., Conclusion: Additional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of 'presumed' IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence.

Background: Cholecystectomy after gallstone pancreatitis may be technically demanding. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for a difficult cholecystectomy after mild pancreatitis., Methods: This was a prospective study within a randomized controlled trial on the timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Difficulty of cholecystectomy was scored on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) by the senior attending surgeon. The primary outcome 'difficult cholecystectomy' was defined by presence of one or more of the following features: a VAS score ≥ 8, duration of surgery > 75 minutes, conversion or subtotal cholecystectomy., Results: 249 patients were included in the primary analysis. A difficult cholecystectomy occurred in 82 patients (33%). In the 'same-admission cholecystectomy' group 29 of 112 cholecystectomies were difficult (26%) versus 49 of 127 patients (39%) who underwent surgery after 2 weeks (p = 0.037). After multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3.13; p = 0.037), prior sphincterotomy (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.16; p = 0.046), and delaying cholecystectomy for at least two weeks (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.04-3.16; p = 0.036) were independent predictors of a difficult cholecystectomy., Conclusion: Surgeons should anticipate a difficult cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis in case of male sex, prior sphincterotomy and delayed cholecystectomy., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Same-admission cholecystectomy is advised after gallstone pancreatitis to prevent recurrent pancreatitis, colicky pain and other complications, but data on the incidence of symptoms and complications after cholecystectomy are lacking., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study during the previously published randomized controlled PONCHO trial on timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Data on healthcare consumption and questionnaires focusing on colicky pain and biliary complications were obtained during 6 months after cholecystectomy. Main outcomes were (i) postoperative colicky pain as reported in questionnaires and (ii) medical treatment for postoperative symptoms and gallstone related complications., Results: Among 262 patients who underwent cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis, 28 of 191 patients (14.7%) reported postoperative colicky pain. The majority of these were reported within 2 months after surgery and were single events. Overall, 25 patients (9.5%) required medical treatment for symptoms or gallstone related complications. Acute readmission was required in seven patients (2.7%). No predictors for the development of postoperative colicky pain were identified., Discussion: Some 15% of patients experienced colicky pain after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis, which were mostly single events and rarely required readmission. These data may be used to better inform patients undergoing cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711., Findings: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint., Interpretation: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference., Funding: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Severe acute pancreatitis is associated with peripancreatic morphologic changes as seen on imaging. Uniform communication regarding these morphologic findings is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. For the original 1992 Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement is poor. We hypothesized that for the revised Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement will be better., Methods: An international, interobserver agreement study was performed among expert and nonexpert radiologists (n = 14), surgeons (n = 15), and gastroenterologists (n = 8). Representative computed tomographies of all stages of acute pancreatitis were selected from 55 patients and were assessed according to the revised Atlanta classification. The interobserver agreement was calculated among all reviewers and subgroups, that is, expert and nonexpert reviewers; interobserver agreement was defined as poor (≤0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), good (0.61-0.80), or very good (0.81-1.00)., Results: Interobserver agreement among all reviewers was good (0.75 [standard deviation, 0.21]) for describing the type of acute pancreatitis and good (0.62 [standard deviation, 0.19]) for the type of peripancreatic collection. Expert radiologists showed the best and nonexpert clinicians the lowest interobserver agreement., Conclusions: Interobserver agreement was good for the revised Atlanta classification, supporting the importance for widespread adaption of this revised classification for clinical and research communications.

Background: Same-admission cholecystectomy is indicated after gallstone pancreatitis to reduce the risk of recurrent disease or other gallstone-related complications, but its impact on overall costs is unclear. This study analysed the cost-effectiveness of same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis., Methods: In a multicentre RCT (Pancreatitis of biliary Origin: optimal timiNg of CHOlecystectomy; PONCHO) patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis were randomized before discharge to either cholecystectomy within 72 h (same-admission cholecystectomy) or cholecystectomy after 25-30 days (interval cholecystectomy). Healthcare use of all patients was recorded prospectively using clinical report forms. Unit costs of resources used were determined, and patients completed multiple Health and Labour Questionnaires to record pancreatitis-related absence from work. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from societal and healthcare perspectives, with the costs per readmission prevented as primary outcome with a time horizon of 6 months., Results: All 264 trial participants were included in the present analysis, 128 randomized to same-admission cholecystectomy and 136 to interval cholecystectomy. Same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the risk of acute readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications from 16·9 to 4·7 per cent (P = 0·002). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were €234 (95 per cent c.i. -1249 to 738) less per patient in the same-admission cholecystectomy group. Same-admission cholecystectomy was superior to interval cholecystectomy, with a societal incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€1918 to prevent one readmission for gallstone-related complications., Conclusion: In mild biliary pancreatitis, same-admission cholecystectomy was more effective and less costly than interval cholecystectomy., (© 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Currently, a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) is often performed after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, the CEA is associated with a considerable incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation and moderate functional results. An intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) might reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, improve functional results and reduce costs. The objective of the ICAN trial is to compare anastomotic leakage and postoperative morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness between CEA and IEA after MIE., Methods/design: The ICAN trial is an open randomized controlled multicentre superiority trial, comparing CEA (control group) with IEA (intervention group) after MIE. All patients with esophageal cancer planning to undergo curative MIE are considered for inclusion. A total of 200 patients will be included in the study and randomized between the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation, and secondary outcomes are (amongst others) other postoperative complications, new onset of organ failure, length of stay, mortality, benign strictures requiring dilatation, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Discussion: We hypothesize that an IEA after MIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation than a CEA. The trial is also designed to give answers to additional research questions regarding a possible difference in functional outcome, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4333 . Registered on 23 December 2013.

Objectives: The authors investigated if timing of medical treatment is associated with the analgesic effect of pregabalin or placebo in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP)., Methods: Sixty-four patients received pregabalin (150-300 mg twice a day) or matching placebo for 3 consecutive weeks. Responders to treatment were defined as patients with a reduction in clinical pain scores of 30% or greater. Factors associated with timing of pain treatment (ie, duration of CP and opioid usage) were collected at baseline. In addition, other factors that potentially could influence outcome (eg, clinical pain scores prior to study medication, diabetes, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency) were also included. Conventional groupwise logistic regression and analysis on the individual patient level with a machine learning technique were used to predict treatment response., Results: In the conventional statistical analysis duration of CP (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.1; P = 0.3) and opioid treatment (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.1; P = 0.6) were not associated with pain relief. In addition, none of the supplementary factors were associated with treatment response (all P > 0.1). Likewise, in the individual patient-level analysis, none of the included variables reached classification accuracies greater than chance level (all P > 0.1)., Conclusions: Pregabalin can be added as adjuvant analgesic at any time point during the disease course of CP.

Background: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery., Methods: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete., Findings: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death., Interpretation: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications., Funding: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Pain in chronic pancreatitis (CP) shows similarities with other visceral pain syndromes (i.e., inflammatory bowel disease and esophagitis), which should thus be managed in a similar fashion. Typical causes of CP pain include increased intrapancreatic pressure, pancreatic inflammation and pancreatic/extrapancreatic complications. Unfortunately, CP pain continues to be a major clinical challenge. It is recognized that ongoing pain may induce altered central pain processing, e.g., central sensitization or pro-nociceptive pain modulation. When this is present conventional pain treatment targeting the nociceptive focus, e.g., opioid analgesia or surgical/endoscopic intervention, often fails even if technically successful. If central nervous system pain processing is altered, specific treatment targeting these changes should be instituted (e.g., gabapentinoids, ketamine or tricyclic antidepressants). Suitable tools are now available to make altered central processing visible, including quantitative sensory testing, electroencephalograpy and (functional) magnetic resonance imaging. These techniques are potentially clinically useful diagnostic tools to analyze central pain processing and thus define optimum management approaches for pain in CP and other visceral pain syndromes. The present review proposes a systematic mechanism-orientated approach to pain management in CP based on a holistic view of the mechanisms involved. Future research should address the circumstances under which central nervous system pain processing changes in CP, and how this is influenced by ongoing nociceptive input and therapies. Thus we hope to predict which patients are at risk for developing chronic pain or not responding to therapy, leading to improved treatment of chronic pain in CP and other visceral pain disorders.