Search

Background Several studies have suggested a survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the pancreatic head. Data concerning NAT for PDAC located in pancreatic body or tail are lacking. Methods Post hoc analysis of an international multicenter retrospective cohort of distal pancreatectomy for PDAC in 34 centers from 11 countries (2007–2015). Patients who underwent resection after NAT were matched (1:1 ratio), using propensity scores based on baseline characteristics, to patients who underwent upfront resection. Median overall survival was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Results Among 1236 patients, 136 (11.0%) received NAT, most frequently FOLFIRINOX (25.7%). In total, 94 patients receiving NAT were matched to 94 patients undergoing upfront resection. NAT was associated with less postoperative major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a, 10.6% vs. 23.4%, P = 0.020) and pancreatic fistula grade B/C (9.6% vs. 21.3%, P = 0.026). NAT did not improve overall survival [27 (95% CI 14–39) versus 31 months (95% CI 19–42), P = 0.277], as compared with upfront resection. In a sensitivity analysis of 251 patients with radiographic tumor involvement of splenic vessels, NAT (n = 37, 14.7%) was associated with prolonged overall survival [36 (95% CI 18–53) versus 20 months (95% CI 15–24), P = 0.049], as compared with upfront resection. Conclusion In this international multicenter cohort study, NAT for resected PDAC in pancreatic body or tail was associated with less morbidity and pancreatic fistula but similar overall survival in comparison with upfront resection. Prospective studies should confirm a survival benefit of NAT in patients with PDAC and splenic vessel involvement.

Objective: Major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients still represents a great challenge for liver surgeons. Hence, the aim in the present study is to investigate the clinical impact of major hepatectomy and to assess whether the surgical approach influences the outcome of cirrhotic patients. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study including cirrhotic patients undergoing major laparoscopic (mjLLR) and open liver resection (mjOLR) in 14 Western liver centers was performed (2009–2020). Clinical, demographic, and perioperative data were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Long-term outcome after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma was analyzed. Results: Overall, 352 patients were included; 108 after mjLLR and 244 after mjOLR. After PSM, 88 patients were matched in each group. In the mjLLR group, compared to mjOLR, less blood loss (P=.042), lower overall and severe complication (P&nbsp

Background Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP. Methods/design DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Discussion The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265. Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Background: Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates. Results: Out of 30, 860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35, 600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%–2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and

Keyhole i.e. minimally invasive, including laparoscopy or robotic, surgery has brought a revolutionary change in the surgical field and is associated with less surgical trauma to tissue, less intra-operative blood loss, pain reduction, shorter time to functional recovery and shorter hospital stay. For pancreatic surgery the use of keyhole surgery is still in development. Randomized data, published in recent years created mixed signals. Hereby hampering the widespread dissemination of keyhole pancreatic surgery. This thesis emphasises the importance of understanding the potential drawbacks of the minimally invasive technique by looking into the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), the surgical outcomes following conversion to open surgery during MIDP and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and in addition into the selection criteria for suitable patients for the minimally invasive technique. Choosing the right patient for the technique is important, as poor selection may result in poor outcome and the described risk factors for conversion should be considered. Furthermore, this thesis describes how keyhole surgery is applied best. It showed that robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has some advantages over laparoscopy in terms of spleen-preservation and conversion rates. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with spleen-preservation results in similar short-term surgical outcomes when compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Whether MIDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma results in comparable oncological outcomes as open surgery will be proven by the DIPLOMA randomized controlled trial. Finally, in order to further improve the outcomes of pancreatic surgery, this thesis highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration.

This thesis aims to assess and improve outcomes in minimally invasive pancreas and liver surgery with a focus on international multicenter collaboration. Included in this thesis are evidence-based guidelines within minimally invasive pancreatic surgery which were lacking and therefore a consensus meeting was organized in Miami in March 2019 where all evidence to date was summarized and guidelines were established with the aim to optimize patient safety and operative outcomes. The need for national and international registries in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery was highlighted and therefore E-MIPS decided to set up such a registry. Data of this first year was included in this thesis and were used to provide an overview of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery practice across Europe and additionally to show differences between the laparoscopic and robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. For this thesis, several studies were performed comparing different approaches in pancreas and liver surgery. The robotic and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy were compared, as were laparoscopic and open right posterior sectionectomy. Additionally, a systematic review on both elderly and obese patients undergoing either minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy is included. In minimally invasive liver surgery, most studies only include high volume expert centers and therefore might not be easily translated to general practice. Some nationwide or international registries collect data prospectively on minimally invasive liver resections. A study was included in this thesis comparing the design and included variables of these large nationwide registries.

Objective: The aim of this study was to establish clinically relevant outcome benchmark values using criteria for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric venous resection (PVR) from a low-risk cohort managed in high-volume centers. Summary Background Data: PD with PVR is regarded as the standard of care in patients with cancer involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. There are, however, no benchmark outcome indicators for this population which hampers comparisons of patients undergoing PD with and without PVR resection. Methods: This multicenter study analyzed patients undergoing PD with any type of PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. Nineteen outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of the centers (NCT04053998). Results: Out of 1462 patients with PD and PVR, 840 (58%) formed the benchmark cohort, with a mean age was 64 (SD11) years, 413 (49%) were females. Benchmark cutoffs, among others, were calculated as follows: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery): ≤14%; in-hospital mortality rate: ≤4%; major complication rate Grade≥3 and the CCI up to 6 months postoperatively: ≤36% and ≤26, respectively; portal vein thrombosis rate: ≤14% and 5-year survival for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: ≥9%. Conclusion: These novel benchmark cutoffs targeting surgical performance, morbidity, mortality, and oncological parameters show relatively inferior results in patients undergoing vascular resection because of involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. These benchmark values however can be used to conclusively assess the results of different centers or surgeons operating on this high-risk group.

Background Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. Method An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. Results A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P Conclusion High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

Importance: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant combination treatment with folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) is unclear.Objective: To assess the association of adjuvant chemotherapy with overall survival (OS) in patients after pancreatic cancer resection and neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX treatment.Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018. An existing cohort of patients undergoing resection of pancreatic cancer after FOLFIRINOX was updated and expanded for the purpose of this study. All consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic surgery after at least 2 cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer were retrospectively identified from institutional databases. Patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer were eligible for this study. Patients with in-hospital mortality or who died within 3 months after surgery were excluded.Exposures: The association of adjuvant chemotherapy with OS was evaluated in different subgroups including interaction terms for clinicopathological parameters with adjuvant treatment in a multivariable Cox model. Overall survival was defined as the time starting from surgery plus 3 months (moment eligible for adjuvant therapy), unless mentioned otherwise.Results: We included 520 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 61 [53-66] years; 279 [53.7%] men) from 31 centers in 19 countries. The median number of neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX was 6 (interquartile range, 5-8). Overall, 343 patients (66.0%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 68 (19.8%) received FOLFIRINOX, 201 (58.6%) received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, 14 (4.1%) received capecitabine, 45 (13.1%) received a combination or other agents, and 15 (4.4%) received an unknown type of adjuvant chemotherapy. Median OS was 38 months (95% CI, 36-46 months) after diagnosis and 31 months (95% CI, 29-37 months) after surgery. No survival difference was found for patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy vs those who did not (median OS, 29 vs 29 months, univariable hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.28; P = .93). In multivariable analysis, only the interaction term for lymph node stage with adjuvant therapy was statistically significant: In patients with pathology-proven node-positive disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved survival (median OS, 26 vs 13 months; multivariable HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.75]; P = .004). In patients with node-negative disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved survival (median OS, 38 vs 54 months; multivariable HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.35-2.10; P = .73).Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and resection of pancreatic cancer was associated with improved survival only in patients with pathology-proven node-positive disease. Future randomized studies should be conducted to confirm this finding.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Background: The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies. Methods: All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed. Results: A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Importance: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure that captures the most desirable surgical outcomes as a single indicator, yet to date TO has not been defined and assessed in the field of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). Objective: To obtain international agreement on the definition of TO in liver surgery (TOLS) and to assess the incidence of TO in LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter database using a propensity-score matched analysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all liver diseases between January 2011 and October 2019 were analyzed using a large international multicenter liver surgical database. An international survey was conducted among all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) to reach agreement on the definition of TOLS. The rate of TOLS was assessed for LLR and OLR before and after propensity-score matching. Factors associated with achieving TOLS were investigated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Textbook outcome, with TOLS defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents of grade 2 or higher, postoperative bile leak grade B or C, severe postoperative complications, readmission within 30 days after discharge, in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. Results: A total of 8188 patients (4559 LLR; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]; 2529 were male [55.8%] and 3629 OLR; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 56-71 years]; 2204 were male [60.7%]) were included in the analysis of whom 69.1% achieved TOLS; 74.8% for LLR and 61.9% for OLR (P 10 cm = OR, 0.550 [95% CI, 0.366-0.826]; P =.004) were associated with a worse TOLS rate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter study, TOLS was found to be a useful tool for assessing patient-level hospital performance and may have utility in optimizing patient outcomes after LLR and OLR..

The research presented in this thesis provides insight in the dissemination and outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections on a national and international level. A worldwide survey regarding minimally invasive pancreatic resection showed that participants value minimally invasive pancreatic resection as a useful development, especially for distal pancreatectomy. In the Netherlands minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was introduced with a specific nationwide training program (LAELAPS). Following, a multicenter, patient-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed (LEOPARD) and found a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after the minimally invasive approach. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has a probability of 0.653 of being more cost-effective than open. The oncological safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy remains uncertain and further (randomized) studies are needed. Following the successful introduction of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy interest increased in also performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. A second nationwide training program (LAELAPS-2) was performed with successful outcomes. Following, a second multicenter, patient-blinded, randomized controlled trial (LEOPARD-2) was performed. This trial was preliminary terminated due to a 90-day, complication-related mortality of five patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group versus one in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group. The primary outcome, time to functional recovery, was at this time comparable after both procedures. The LEOPARD-2 trial therefore raised concerns on the safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy without showing evidence for a benefit in terms of time to functional recovery, in medium-high volume centers, even when performed by trained surgeons. In conclusion, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has come a long way regarding the introduction, development, and assessment of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. Hopefully, this thesis stimulates surgeons worldwide to consider carefully whether they are equipped to perform minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and stimulates to participate in large multicenter studies and registries.

This thesis describes the outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery in starting, low-volume centers, as well as experienced, high-volume centers in order to both guide the evidence based implementation of laparoscopic liver surgery, and demonstrate its feasibility and safety in a wide range of procedures.

Background Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection. Methods A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests. Results Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123–273) versus 256 (199–320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50–450) versus 300 (100–600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3–8) versus 6 (5–8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR. Conclusion LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

International audience; OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200?mL (60-400) vs 300?mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P \textless 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade >=3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P \textgreater 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P \textless 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P \textless 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Thijs de Rooij doet onderzoek naar de landelijke introductie van minimaal-invasieve alvleesklierchirurgie. Hij richt zich met name op de alvleesklierstaartresectie en de pancreatoduodenectomie, twee procedures die met name uitgevoerd worden voor de behandeling van alvleesklierkanker. Hij bekijkt of een laparoscopische of robot-geassisteerde benadering voor dit type chirurgie van toegevoegde waarde zijn. In eerste instantie rolt hij onder intensieve begeleiding landelijke introductieprogramma’s uit en bekijkt hij of deze introductie veilig is verlopen. Hierna worden de uitkomsten vergeleken met de conventionele ‘open’ benadering voor alvleesklierchirurgie. Hij analyseert voornamelijk de operatieve uitkomsten, complicaties, opnameduur, kwaliteit van leven en kosten, onder andere in landelijke gerandomiseerd gecontroleerde studies.

Objective: To investigate the risk factors for conversion during laparoscopic liver resection and its effect on patient outcome in a large cohort of patients. Additional analysis of outcomes in patients who required conversion for unfavorable intraoperative findings and conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events will be performed to establish if the cause of conversion effects outcome. Summary Background Data: Multiple previous studies demonstrate that laparoscopic liver surgery reduces intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity while maintaining comparable oncological and survival outcomes when compared with open liver resections. However, limited information is available regarding the possible sequelae of conversion to open surgery, especially with regards to cause of conversion. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2861 cases from prospectively maintained databases of 7 tertiary liver centers across Europe was performed. Results: Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, previous liver resection(s), resections for malignant lesions, postero-superior location, and the extent of the resection are associated with an increased risk of conversion. Patients who require conversion have longer operations with higher blood loss; a longer HDU and total hospital stay, increased frequency and severity of complications and higher 30- and 90-day mortality. Patients who had an elective conversion for an unfavorable intraoperative finding had better outcomes than patients who had an emergency conversion secondary to an unfavorable intraoperative event in terms of HDU and total hospital stay, severity of complication, and 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Our study highlights the risk factors for conversion and suggests that conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events is associated with worse outcomes.

Background Previous studies have demonstrated that patient, surgical, tumour and operative variables affect the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections. However, current difficulty scoring systems address only tumour factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resections. Methods The prospectively maintained databases of seven European tertiary referral liver centres were compiled. Data from two-thirds of the patients were used for development and one-third for validation of the model. Intraoperative complications were based on a modified Satava classification. Using the methodology of the Framingham Heart Study, developed to identify risk factors that contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, factors found to predict intraoperative complications independently were assigned points, and grouped into low-, moderate-, high- and extremely high-risk groups based on the likelihood of intraoperative complications. Results A total of 2856 patients were included. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lesion type and size, classification of resection and previous open liver resection were found to be independent predictors of intraoperative complications. Patients with intraoperative complications had a longer duration of hospital stay (5 versus 4 days; P < 0·001), higher complication rates (32·5 versus 15·5 per cent; P < 0·001), and higher 30-day (3·0 versus 0·3 per cent; P < 0·001) and 90-day (3·8 versus 0·8 per cent; P < 0·001) mortality rates than those who did not. The model was able to predict intraoperative complications (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) 0·677, 95 per cent c.i. 0·647 to 0·706) as well as postoperative 90-day mortality (AUC 0·769, 0·681 to 0·858). Conclusion This comprehensive scoring system, based on patient, surgical and tumour factors, and developed and validated using a large multicentre European database, helped estimate the risk of intraoperative complications.

Laparoscopy was suggested as gold standard for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), thanks to recognized benefits compared to open approach. Aim of this study was to define learning curve (LC) of laparoscopic LLS (LLLS) using operative time (OT) as tool to analyze outcome of procedures performed by four experienced surgeons. Reproducibility and safety of LC in LLLS among independent surgeons were also analyzed as essential features of "standard procedure" concept. LLLS performed by four experienced surgeons was collected. Multivariate analysis was carried out to screen factors affecting OT. A cumulative LC was created calculating median OT. Skewness of OT was analyzed, and ROC curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for LC. The impact of LC on outcomes (morbidity and mortality, blood loss, conversions, surgical margins and length of stay) was determined. A total of 245 LLLSs were collected. Conversion rate was 1.2 %. Median OT was 141 min, blood loss 100 mL, morbidity 11.4 % and mortality 0.4 %. "Associated procedures" was the only independent factor affecting OT. The skewness of the OT was calculated, and the cutoff point for LC was determined after 15 LLLSs. LLLS performed during and after LC period had similar outcomes. LLLS is feasible with low morbidity, mortality and conversion rate. LC in LLLS is shorter compared to minor liver resections. Furthermore, it is reproducible and safe since it does not negatively affect clinical outcome. A reproducible, safe and short LC contributes to considering laparoscopy as the gold standard approach to perform LLS.

International audience; Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.METHODS:An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.RESULTS:LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.CONCLUSIONS:LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

The use of laparoscopy for liver surgery is increasing rapidly. The Second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resections (LLR) was held in Morioka, Japan, from October 4 to 6, 2014 to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery and to provide recommendations to aid its future development. Seventeen questions were addressed. The first 7 questions focused on outcomes that reflect the benefits and risks of LLR. These questions were addressed using the Zurich-Danish consensus conference model in which the literature and expert opinion were weighed by a 9-member jury, who evaluated LLR outcomes using GRADE and a list of comparators. The jury also graded LLRs by the Balliol Classification of IDEAL. The jury concluded that MINOR LLRs had become standard practice (IDEAL 3) and that MAJOR liver resections were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase (IDEAL 2b). Continued cautious introduction of MAJOR LLRs was recommended. All of the evidence available for scrutiny was of LOW quality by GRADE, which prompted the recommendation for higher quality evaluative studies. The last 10 questions focused on technical questions and the recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion. Recommendations were made regarding preoperative evaluation, bleeding controls, transection methods, anatomic approaches, and equipment. Both experts and jury recognized the need for a formal structure of education for those interested in performing major laparoscopic LLR because of the steep learning curve.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of liver lesions has moved toward "parenchymal-sparing" strategies. Although open parenchymal-sparing liver resections are supported by encouraging results, the applicability of the laparoscopic approach for nonperipheral tumors is still questionable. Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resection for nonperipheral lesions with a description of the technique adopted in this setting. STUDY DESIGN: A prospectively collected single-center database of 517 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed. Laparoscopic nonperipheral parenchymal-sparing liver resections (LapPSLRs), that is, entirely intraparenchymal limited resections performed on nonperipheral lesions, were selected. Intra-and perioperative outcomes were analyzed along with 3-year actuarial survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases. RESULTS: The group comprised 49 LapPSLRs. Colorectal liver metastases were the most frequent diagnosis (n = 24 patients). Lesions were located in segments 8, 7, 4a, and 3 in 51%, 8.2%, 36.7%, and 4.1% of cases, respectively. Conversion occurred in 4 patients (8%). Intra-and postoperative short-term outcomes were calculated for the 24 isolated LapPSLR (not associated with any concurrent liver resection). Median operative time and blood loss were 215 minutes and 225 mL, respectively. Pringle maneuver was used in 75% of cases. Postoperative 90-day mortality was nil and morbidity rate was 12.5%. Median postoperative stay was 3 days. Median tumor-free margin was 4 mm and 100% R0 rate was achieved for all LapPSLRs with curative intent. Three-year overall, recurrence-free, and disease-free survival rates were 100%, 65.2%, and 69.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resections for nonperipheral liver lesions are feasible and can be performed safely without compromising perioperative and oncological outcomes. (J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221: 265e272. (C) 2015 by the American College of Surgeons)

Background Factors influencing long-term outcome after surgical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma are unclear. Methods A prospectively created database was reviewed for patients undergoing surgery for duodenal adenocarcinoma in six UK hepatopancreaticobiliary centres from 2000 to 2013. Factors influencing overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were identified by regression analysis. Results Resection with curative intent was performed in 150 (84·3 per cent) of 178 patients. The postoperative morbidity rate for these patients was 40·0 per cent and the in-hospital mortality rate was 3·3 per cent. Patients who underwent resection had a better median survival than those who had a palliative surgical procedure (84 versus 8 months; P < 0·001). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates for patients who underwent resection were 83·9, 66·7 and 51·2 per cent respectively. Median DFS was 53 months, and 1- and 3-year DFS rates were 80·8 and 56·5 per cent respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that node status (hazard ratio 1·73, 95 per cent c.i. 1·07 to 2·79; P = 0·006) and lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio 3·49, 1·83 to 6·64; P = 0·003) were associated with overall survival. Conclusion Resection of duodenal adenocarcinoma in specialist centres is associated with good long-term survival. Lymphovascular invasion and nodal metastases are independent prognostic indicators.

Although minor laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) appear as standardized procedures, major LLRs are still limited to few expert teams. The aim of this study was to report the combined data of 18 international centers performing major LLR. Variables evaluated were number and type of LLR, surgical indications, number of synchronous colorectal resections, details on technical points, conversion rates, operative time, blood loss and surgical margins. From 1996 to 2014, a total of 5388 LLR were carried out including 1184 major LLRs. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) was colorectal liver metastases (37.0%). Seven centers used hand assistance or hybrid approach selectively for LRH mostly at the beginning of their experience. Seven centers apply Pringle's maneuver routinely. The conversion rate for all major LLRs was 10% and mean operative time was 291 min. Mean estimated blood loss for all major LLR was 327 ml and negative surgical margin rate was 96.5%. Major LLRs still remain challenging procedures requiring important experience in both laparoscopy and liver surgery. Stimulating the younger generation to learn and accomplish these techniques is the better way to guarantee further development of this surgical field.