Search

Background: The necessity of the staging laparoscopy in patients with pancreatic cancer is still debated. The objective of this study was to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy for detecting occult metastases in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer., Method: This was a post-hoc analysis of the randomized controlled PREOPANC trial in which patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomized between preoperative chemoradiotherapy or immediate surgery. Patients assigned to preoperative treatment underwent a staging laparoscopy prior to preoperative treatment according to protocol, to avoid unnecessary chemoradiotherapy in patients with occult metastatic disease., Results: Of the 246 included patients, 7 did not undergo surgery. A staging laparoscopy was performed in 133 patients (55.6%) and explorative laparotomy in 106 patients (44.4%). At staging laparoscopy, occult metastases were detected in 13 patients (9.8%); 12 liver metastases and 1 peritoneal metastasis. At direct explorative laparotomy, occult metastases were found in 9 patients (8.5%); 6 with liver metastases, 1 with peritoneal metastases, and 2 with metastases at multiple sites. One patient had peritoneal metastases at exploration after a negative staging laparoscopy. Patients with occult metastases were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy if found with staging laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (76.9% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.040)., Conclusions: Staging laparoscopy detected occult metastases in about 10% of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. These patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic chemotherapy compared to patients in whom occult metastases were detected with laparotomy. A staging laparoscopy is recommended before planned resection., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting., Methods: The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised., Discussion: The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917 . Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion., Protocol Version: version 12, May 9, 2017., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To illustrate how decision modeling may identify relevant uncertainty and can preclude or identify areas of future research in surgery., Summary Background Data: To optimize use of research resources, a tool is needed that assists in identifying relevant uncertainties and the added value of reducing these uncertainties., Methods: The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (ODP) for nonmalignant lesions was modeled in a decision tree. Cost-effectiveness based on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival was analyzed. The effect of existing uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness was addressed, as well as the expected value of eliminating uncertainties., Results: Based on 29 nonrandomized studies (3.701 patients) the model shows that LDP is more cost-effective compared with ODP. Scenarios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mortality rate of 1.79 times higher after LDP as compared with ODP, conversion in 62.2%, surgically repair of incisional hernias in 21% after LDP, or an average 2.3 days longer hospital stay after LDP than after ODP. Taking all uncertainty into account, LDP remained more cost-effective. Minimizing these uncertainties did not change the outcome., Conclusions: The results show how decision analytical modeling can help to identify relevant uncertainty and guide decisions for future research in surgery. Based on the current available evidence, a randomized clinical trial on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival is highly unlikely to change the conclusion that LDP is more cost-effective than ODP.

Background: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown., Methods: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery., Results: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR., Discussion: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite extensive preoperative staging, still almost half of patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) have locally advanced or metastasized disease upon exploratory laparotomy. The value of routine staging laparoscopy (SL) in these patients remains unclear with varying results reported in the literature. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide an overview of studies on SL in PHC and to define its current role in preoperative staging., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in PubMed and EMBASE regarding studies providing data on the diagnostic accuracy of SL in PHC. Primary outcome measures were the overall yield and sensitivity to detect unresectable disease. Secondary outcomes were the yield and sensitivity for recent studies (after 2010) and large study cohorts (≥100 patients) and specific (metastatic) lesions. Methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool., Results: From 173 records, 12 studies including 832 patients met the inclusion criteria. The yield of SL in PHC varied from 6.4 to 45.0 % with a pooled yield of 24.4 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 16.4-33.4]. Sensitivity to detect unresectable disease ranged from 31.6 to 75 % with a pooled sensitivity of 52.2 % (95 % CI 47.1-57.2). Sensitivity was highest for peritoneal metastases (80.7 %, 95 % CI 70.9-88.3). Subgroup analysis revealed that the yield and sensitivity tended to be lower for studies after 2010. Considerable heterogeneity was detected among the studies., Conclusions: The results of the pooled analyses suggest that one in four patients with potentially resectable PHC benefits from SL. Given considerable heterogeneity, a trend to lower yield in more recent studies and further improvement of preoperative imaging over time, the routine use of SL seems discouraging. Studies that identify predictors of unresectability, that enable selection of patients who will benefit the most from this procedure, are needed., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Disclosures No financial grants or other fundings have been received in support of this study. The authors, Robert J. S. Coelen, Anthony T. Ruys, Marc G. H. Besselink, Olivier R. C. Busch and Thomas M. van Gulik, declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both., Search Methods: We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status.., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible., Main Results: We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements., Authors' Conclusions: Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature can be challenging, and many would consider it a contraindication. Recently, however, laparoscopic liver surgeons have been pushing boundaries and approached some of these lesions laparoscopically. We assessed feasibility, safety and oncological efficiency of this laparoscopic approach for these lesions., Methods: This is a monocenter study (2003-2013) describing technique and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature: <2 cm from the portal vein (main trunk and first division), hepatic arteries or inferior vena cava., Results: Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for a lesion adjacent to major vasculature. Twenty-four (65%) resections were for malignant disease and 92% R0 resections. Conversion occurred in three patients (8%). Mean operative time was 313 min (standard deviation (SD) ± 101) and intraoperative blood loss 400 ml (IQR 213-700). Clavien-Dindo complications > II occurred in two cases (5%), with no mortality. Lesions at <1 cm were larger (7.2 cm (2.7-14) vs. 3 cm (2.5-5), p = 0.03) and operation time was longer (344 ± 94 vs. 262 ± 92 min, p = 0.01) than lesions at 1-2 cm from major vasculature., Conclusions: Lesions <2 cm from major hepatic vasculature do not represent an absolute contraindication for LLR when performed by experienced laparoscopic liver surgeons in selected patients.

Background: For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer., Methods/design: This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications., Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient., Trial Registration: Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.