Search

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The choice for the type of procedure is influenced by the expected oncological benefit and the anticipated risk of procedure-specific complications. Few studies have focused on complications in these patients. This cohort study aimed to assess complications and risk factors after resections of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor were identified within 2 centers of excellence. Complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Logistic regression was performed to compare surgical procedures with adjustment for potential confounders (Clavien-Dindo ≥3).RESULTS: The cohort comprised 123 patients, including 12 enucleations, 50 distal pancreatectomies, 51 pancreatoduodenectomies, and 10 total/combined pancreatectomies. Mortality was 0.8%, a severe complication occurred in 41.5%, and the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.0%. The median comprehensive complication index was 22.6 (0-100); the comprehensive complication index increased after more extensive resections. After adjustment, a pancreatoduodenectomy, as compared to a distal pancreatectomy, increased the risk for a severe complication (odds ratio 3.13 [95% confidence interval 1.32-7.41]). Of the patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 or von Hippel-Lindau, 51.9% developed a severe complication vs 38.5% with sporadic disease. After major resections, morbidity was significantly higher in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau (comprehensive complication index 45.1 vs 28.9, P = .029).CONCLUSION: Surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is associated with a high rate of complications but low failure-to-rescue in centers of excellence. Complications are procedure-specific. Major resections in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau appear to increase the risk of complications.

Contains fulltext : 138363.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: The worldwide introduction of multimodal enhanced recovery programs has also changed perioperative care in patients who undergo liver resection. This study was performed to assess current perioperative practice in liver surgery in 11 European HPB centers and compare it to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. METHODS: In each unit, 15 consecutive patients (N = 165) who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Compliance was classified as "full," "partial," or "poor" whenever >/= 80, >/= 50, or

Objectives Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) or fast‐track protocols have been implemented in different fields of surgery to attenuate the surgical stress response and accelerate recovery. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on outcomes of ERAS protocols applied in liver surgery. Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case–control studies and case series published between January 1966 and October 2011 comparing adult patients undergoing elective liver surgery in an ERAS programme with those treated in a conventional manner. The primary outcome measure was hospital length of stay (LoS). Secondary outcome measures were time to functional recovery, and complication, readmission and mortality rates. Results A total of 307 articles were found, six of which were included in the review. These comprised two RCTs, three case–control studies and one retrospective case series. Median LoS ranged from 4 days in an ERAS group to 11 days in a control group. Morbidity, mortality and readmission rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Only two studies assessed time to functional recovery. Functional recovery in these studies was reached 2 days before discharge. conclusions This systematic review suggests that ERAS protocols can be successfully implemented in liver surgery. Length of stay is reduced without compromising morbidity, mortality or readmission rates.

Background: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review on the introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands, to investigate the initial experience with laparoscopic liver resections and to report on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands. Methods: A systematic literature search of laparoscopic liver resections in the Netherlands was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE. Analysis of initial experience with laparoscopic liver surgery was performed by case-control comparison of patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy matched with patients undergoing the open procedure in the Netherlands between the years 2000 and 2008. Furthermore, a nationwide survey was conducted in 2011 on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery. Results: The systematic review revealed only 6 Dutch reports on actual laparoscopic liver surgery. Matched case-control comparison showed significant differences in the length of hospital stay, blood loss and operation time. Complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (26 vs. 21%). The 2011 survey showed that 21 centers in the Netherlands performed formal liver resections and that 49 (5% of total) laparoscopic liver resections were performed in 2010. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed that very few laparoscopic liver resections were performed in the Netherlands in the previous millennium. The matched case-control comparison of laparoscopic and open left lateral resection showed a reduction in hospital length of stay with comparable morbidity. The laparoscopic technique has been slowly adopted in the Netherlands, but its popularity seems to increase in recent years.

OBJECTIVES: There is debate concerning the best mode of delivery of analgesia following liver resection, with continuous i.m. infusion of bupivacaine (CIB) plus patient-controlled i.v. analgesia (PCA) suggested as an alternative to continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). This study compares these two modalities. METHODS: A total of 498 patients undergoing major hepatectomy between July 2004 and July 2011 were included. Group 1 received CIB + PCA (n = 429) and Group 2 received CEA (n = 69). Groups were analysed on baseline patient and surgical characteristics. Primary endpoints were pain severity scores and total opioid consumption. Secondary endpoints were pain management failures, need for rescue medication, postoperative (opioid-related) morbidity and hospital length of stay (LoS). RESULTS: In both groups pain was well controlled and >70% of patients had no or minimal pain on PoDs 1 and 2. The numbers of patients experiencing severe pain were similar in both groups: PoD 1 at rest: 0.3% in Group 1 and 0% in Group 2 (P = 1.000); PoD 1 on movement: 8% in Group 1 and 2% in Group 2 (P = 0.338); PoD 2 at rest: 0% in Group 1 and 2% in Group 2 (P = 0.126), and PoD 2 on movement: 5% in Group 1 and 5% in Group 2 (P = 1.000). Although the CIB + PCA group required more opioid rescue medication on PoD 0 (53% versus 22%; P < 0.001), they used less opioids on PoDs 0-3 (P

Objectives Both laparoscopic techniques and multimodal enhanced recovery programmes have been shown to improve recovery and reduce length of hospital stay. Interestingly, evidence‐based care programmes are not widely implemented, whereas new, minimally invasive surgical procedures are often adopted with very little evidence to support their effectiveness. The present survey aimed to shed light on experiences of the adoption of both methods of optimizing recovery. Methods An international, web‐based, 18‐question, electronic survey was composed in 2010. The survey was sent out to 673 hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) centres worldwide in June 2010 to investigate international experiences with laparoscopic liver surgery, fast‐track recovery programmes and surgery‐related equipoise in open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess opinions on strategies for adopting laparoscopic liver surgery in HPB surgical practice. Results A total of 507 centres responded (response rate: 75.3%), 161 of which finished the survey completely. All units reported performing open liver resections, 24.2% performed open living donor resections, 39.1% carried out orthotopic liver transplantations, 87.6% had experience with laparoscopic resections and 2.5% performed laparoscopic living donor resections. A median of 50 (range: 2–560) open and 9.5 (range: 1–80) laparoscopic liver resections per surgical unit were performed in 2009. Patients stayed in hospital for a median of 7 days (range: 2–15 days) after uncomplicated open liver resection and a median of 4 days (range: 1–10 days) after uncomplicated laparoscopic liver resection. Only 28.0% of centres reported having experience with fast‐track programmes in liver surgery. The majority considered the instigation of a randomized controlled trial or a prospective register comparing the outcomes of open and laparoscopic techniques to be necessary. Conclusions Worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection is substantial, although laparoscopic volumes are low in the majority of HPB centres. The adoption of enhanced recovery programmes in liver surgery is limited and should be given greater attention.