Search

Background/purpose: There is uncertainty about the role of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains after distal pancreatectomy. In the present study, we aimed to describe the long-term outcomes of postoperative pancreatic collections in patients who underwent a minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without surgical drain placement., Methods: From 2018 to 2022, consecutive patients who underwent a MIDP were recorded. Patients were followed at 90 days, 6 months, and in the long term. The use of interventional procedures and antibiotic therapy were documented, and the overall evolution of the collections was assessed., Results: A total of 91 patients underwent MIDP; 11 were excluded; 80 were analyzed. Median age was 63 (51-73) years; 61.3% were women. Most lesions (71.3%) were malignant; 15 patients received neoadjuvant therapy. Procedures were laparoscopic (87.5%) or robotic (12.5%). Incidence of postoperative pancreatic collections was 33%; 10 patients were symptomatic. Interventional endoscopic (n = 3) or percutaneous (n = 3) procedures were required. At a follow-up of 24 (17.5-33.1) months, 18 collections resolved completely, eight partially, and one increased., Conclusions: Patients who undergo MIDP without surgical drain placement develop well-tolerated pancreatic collections. Although a minority may require endoscopic or percutaneous drainage, the majority can be managed conservatively and resolve spontaneously in the long term., (© 2024 Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: The spleen plays a significant role in the clearance of circulating microorganisms. Sequelae of splenectomy, especially immunodeficiency, can have a deleterious effect on a patient's health and even lead to death. Hence, splenectomy should be avoided and spleen preservation during elective surgery has become a treatment goal. However, this cannot be achieved in every patient due to intraoperative technical difficulties or oncological reasons. Autogenic splenic implantation (ASI) is currently the only possible way to preserve splenic function when a splenectomy is necessary. Experience largely stems from trauma patients with a splenic rupture. Splenic immune function can be measured by the body's clearing capacity of encapsulated bacteria. The aim of this study is to assess the splenic immune function after ASI was performed during minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy., Methods: This is the protocol for a multicentre, randomized, open-labelled trial. Thirty participants with benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the distal pancreas requiring minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy will be allocated to either additional intraoperative ASI (intervention) or no further intervention (control). An additional 15 patients who will undergo spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy serve as the control group with normal splenic function. Six months postoperatively, after assumed restoration of splenic function, patients will be given a Salmonella typhi (Typhim Vi™) vaccine. The Salmonella typhi vaccine is a polysaccharide vaccine. The specific antibody titres immediately before and 4 to 6 weeks after vaccination will be measured. The ratio between pre- and post-vaccination antibody count is the primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measures include intraoperative details, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and morbidity., Discussion: This study will investigate the splenic immune function of patients who undergo ASI during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. The splenic immune function will be measured using the surrogate outcome of specific antibody titre after vaccination with a Salmonella typhi vaccine. The results will reveal details about splenic function after ASI and guide further treatment options for patients when a splenectomy cannot be avoided. It might eventually lead to a new standard of care making sometimes more demanding and time-consuming spleen-preserving procedures redundant., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN10171587. Prospectively registered on 18 February 2019., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021)., Methods: Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting., Results: Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts., Conclusions: The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide., (© 2021 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: The anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD., Methods: Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting., Results: Three clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection., Conclusions: MIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD., (© 2021 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: Although the number of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) has been steadily increasing in many institutions, minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) remains a complicated procedure that has not been standardized. We present the results of a survey among expert liver surgeons as a benchmark for standardizing MIALR., Method: We administered this survey to 34 expert liver surgeons who routinely perform MIALR. The survey contained questions on personal experience with liver resection, inflow/outflow control methods, and identification techniques of intersegmental/sectional planes (IPs)., Results: All 34 participants completed the survey; 24 experts (70%) had more than 11 years of experience with MILR, and over 80% of experts had performed over 100 open resections and MILRs each. Regarding the methods used for laparoscopic or robotic anatomic resection, the Glissonean approach (GA) was a more frequent procedure than the hilar approach (HA). Although hepatic veins were considered essential landmarks, the exposure methods varied. The top three techniques that the experts recommended for identifying IPs were creating a demarcation line, indocyanine green negative staining method, and intraoperative ultrasound., Conclusion: Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection remains a challenging procedure; however, a certain degree of consensus exists among expert liver surgeons., (© 2021 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

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. Forty-four 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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are now implemented worldwide with strong evidence that adhesion to such protocol reduces medical complications, costs and hospital stay. This concept has been applied for pancreatic surgery since the first published guidelines in 2012. This study presents the updated ERAS recommendations for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in three databases (Embase, Medline Ovid and Cochrane Library Wiley) for the 27 developed ERAS items. Quality of randomized trials was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement checklist. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations., Results: A total of 314 articles were included in the systematic review. Consensus among experts was reached after three rounds. A well-implemented ERAS protocol with good compliance is associated with a reduction in medical complications and length of hospital stay. The highest level of evidence was available for five items: avoiding hypothermia, use of wound catheters as an alternative to epidural analgesia, antimicrobial and thromboprophylaxis protocols and preoperative nutritional interventions for patients with severe weight loss (> 15%)., Conclusions: The current updated ERAS recommendations for PD are based on the best available evidence and processed by the Delphi method. Prospective studies of high quality are encouraged to confirm the benefit of current updated recommendations.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019)., Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking., Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology., Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety., Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.