Search

Objective: The ISGPS aimed to develop a universally accepted definition for PPAP for standardized reporting and outcome comparison. Background: : PPAP is an increasingly recognized complication after partial pancreatic resections, but its incidence and clinical impact, and even its existence are variable because an internationally accepted consensus definition and grading system are lacking. Methods: The ISGPS developed a consensus definition and grading of PPAP with its members after an evidence review and after a series of discussions and multiple revisions from April 2020 to May 2021. Results: We defined PPAP as an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreatic remnant beginning within the first 3 postoperative days after a partial pancreatic resection. The diagnosis requires (1) a sustained postoperative serum hyperamylasemia (POH) greater than the institutional upper limit of normal for at least the first 48 hours postoperatively, (2) associated with clinically relevant features, and (3) radiologic alterations consistent with PPAP. Three different PPAP grades were defined based on the clinical impact: (1) grade postoperative hyperamylasemia, biochemical changes only; (2) grade B, mild or moderate complications; and (3) grade C, severe life-threatening complications. Discussions: The present definition and grading scale of PPAP, based on biochemical, radiologic, and clinical criteria, are instrumental for a better understanding of PPAP and the spectrum of postoperative complications related to this emerging entity. The current terminology will serve as a reference point for standard assessment and lend itself to developing specific treatments and prevention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Fortyfour experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/ staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To stratify major hepatectomies (MajHs) according to their outcomes. Summary of Background Data: MajHs are associated with non-negligible operative risks, but they include a wide range of procedures. Detailed depiction of the outcomes of different MajHs is the basis for a new classification of liver resections. Methods: We retrospectively considered patients that underwent hepatectomy in 17 high-volume centers. Patients with an associated digestive/biliary resection were excluded. We analyzed open MajHs in non-cirrhotic patients. MajHs were classified according to the Brisbane nomenclature. Right hepatectomies (RHs) were reference standards. Outcomes were adjusted for potential confounders, including indication, liver function, preoperative portal vein embolization, and enrolling center. Results: We analyzed a series of 2212 patients. In comparison with RH, left hepatectomy had lower mortality [0.6% vs 2.2%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.25], severe morbidity (11.7% vs 14.4%, OR = 0.62), and liver failure rates (2.1% vs 11.6%, OR = 0.16). Left hepatectomyþSg1 and mesohepatectomyþ/ Sg1 had outcomes similar to RH, except for higher bile leak rate (31.3% and 13.5% vs 6.7%, OR = 4.36 and OR = 2.29). RH þ Sg1 had slightly worse outcomes than RH. Right and left trisectionectomies had higher mortality (5.0% and 7.3% vs 2.2%, OR = 2.07 and OR = 2.71) and liver failure rates than RH (19.0% and 22.0% vs 11.6%, OR =2.03 and OR = 2.21). Left trisectionectomy had even higher severe morbidity (25.6% vs 14.4%, OR = 2.07) and bile leak rates (14.6% vs 6.7%, OR = 2.31). Conclusions: The term ‘‘major hepatectomy’’ includes resections having heterogeneous outcome. Different MajHs can be stratified according to their mortality, severe morbidity, liver failure, and bile leak rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laparoscopic liver resections of lesions in the postero-superior segments (Sg 4a, 7, 8) can be technically challenging. A profound experience in open and laparoscopic surgery is essential to ensure success without compromising surgical safety and oncologic efficiency when applying the laparoscopic approach for these segments. While many experienced surgeons have initially called the postero-superior segments the non-laparoscopic segments, this dogma has been challenged by different groups reporting good results in terms of safety and feasibility for parenchymal-sparing non-anatomical and, however less so, for anatomical resections (AR). Parenchymal-sparing liver resection is nowadays the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases where repeated resections have demonstrated to improve patient's cancer related short and long-term outcome. This can be achieved by performing anatomical or non-anatomical segmental resections. Different surgical techniques to facilitate such resections have been described. The diamond technique has specifically been developed for the non-anatomical resection of non-peripheral lesions in the postero-superior segments and reported to be feasible, reproducible and moreover, oncologic efficient. Similarly, techniques for AR have been described acknowledging that in the minimally invasive setting such resections are technically more demanding requiring precise preoperative planning and a standardized surgical technique to allow pursuing oncological quality of the parenchyma sparing principle. We herein discuss technique, results and tips and tricks of applying the diamond technique for non-anatomical liver resection as well as the practice for AR of lesions in the postero-superior segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly. Background: Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients. Method: Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups. Results: A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age. Conclusions: In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as "Coimbatore Summit Statements". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic minor liver resections (RMLR) versus laparoscopic (L) MLR of the anterolateral segments., Background: Robotic liver surgery has been gaining prominence over the years with increasing usage for a myriad of hepatic resections. Robotic liver resections(RLR) has demonstrated non-inferiority to laparoscopic(L)LR while illustrating advantages over conventional laparoscopy especially for technically difficult and major LR. However, the advantage of RMLR for the anterolateral(AL) (segments II, III, IVb, V and VI) segments, has not been clearly demonstrated., Methods: Between 2008 to 2022, 15,356 of 29,861 patients from 68 international centres underwent robotic(R) or laparoscopic minor liver resections (LMLR) for the AL segments Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for matched analysis., Results: 10,517 patients met the study criteria of which 1,481 underwent RMLR and 9,036 underwent LMLR. A PSM cohort of 1,401 patients in each group were identified for analysis. Compared to the LMLR cohort, the RMLR cohort demonstrated significantly lower median blood loss (75ml vs. 100ml, P<0.001), decreased blood transfusion (3.1% vs. 5.4%, P=0.003), lower incidence of major morbidity (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P=0.004), lower proportion of open conversion (1.2% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001), shorter post operative stay (4 days vs. 5 days, P<0.001), but higher rate of 30-day readmission (3.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.042). These results were then validated by a 1:2 PSM analysis. In the subset analysis for 3,614 patients with cirrhosis, RMLR showed lower median blood loss, decreased blood transfusion, lower open conversion and shorter post operative stay than LMLR., Conclusion: RMLR demonstrated statistically significant advantages over LMLR even for resections in the AL segments although most of the observed clinical differences were minimal., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Marc Besselink and Mohammad Abu Hilal received Investigator Initiated Research grants by Medtronic (DIPLOMA trial), Ethicon (DIPLOMA trial, PANDORINA trial, and E-MIPS registry), and Intuitive Surgical (E-MIPS registry) and proctoring grants for Dutch and European training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy by Intuitive Surgical (LAELAPS-3, LEARNBOT). Nine de Graaf, Mohammad Abu Hilal and Marc Besselink report receiving a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Sarl (Switzerland) to financially support the investigator-initiated DIPLOMA-2 trial.

Background: Tumor size (TS) represents a critical parameter in the risk assessment of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Moreover, TS has been rarely related to the extent of liver resection. The aim of this study was to study the relationship between tumor size and difficulty of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS)., Methods: The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying tumor size at each 10 mm-interval. The optimal cutoffs were chosen taking into consideration the number of endpoints which show a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors., Results: A total of 1910 L-LLS were included. Overall, open conversion and intraoperative blood transfusion were 3.1 and 3.3%, respectively. The major morbidity rate was 2.7% and 90-days mortality 0.6%. Three optimal TS cutoffs were identified: 40-, 70-, and 100-mm. All the selected cutoffs showed a significant discriminative power for the prediction of open conversion, operative time, blood transfusion and need of Pringle maneuver. Moreover, 70- and 100-mm cutoffs were both discriminative for estimated blood loss and major complications. A stepwise increase in rates of open conversion rate (Z = 3.90, P < .001), operative time (Z = 3.84, P < .001), blood loss (Z = 6.50, P < .001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (Z = 5.15, P < .001), Pringle maneuver use (Z = 6.48, P < .001), major morbidity(Z = 2.17, P = .030) and 30-days readmission (Z = 1.99, P = .047) was registered as the size increased., Conclusion: L-LLS for tumors of increasing size was associated with poorer intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes suggesting increasing difficulty of the procedure. We determined three optimal TS cutoffs (40-, 70- and 100-mm) to accurately stratify surgical difficulty after L-LLS., (© 2022 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods., Methods: Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods., Results: Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively., Conclusion: Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS)., Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk., Results: A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87)., Conclusion: The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)