Search

Background Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. Objectives The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Results Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34–1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72–3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72–3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. Conclusions We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

Study Purpose The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Methods The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. Results Not applicable. Conclusion DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

In addition to the prognostically important systemic recurrence, a high rate of local recurrence is a relevant problem of pancreatic cancer surgery. Improvement of local control is a requirement for surgical resection as a prerequisite for a potentially curative treatment.Summary of the current evidence on frequency, relevance, and risk factors of local recurrence. Presentation of strategies for reduction of local recurrence with a special focus on surgical resection techniques.Analysis and appraisal of currently available scientific literature on the topic.Local recurrences occur as the first manifestation of tumor recurrence in 20-50% of patients after resection of pancreatic cancer. The considerable variations of reported local recurrence rates depend on the quality of surgery, regimens of (neo)adjuvant therapy as well as the design of surveillance and duration of follow-up. An R1 status is an important risk factor for local recurrence highlighting the relevance of a local radical resection. The majority of local recurrences consist of perivascular and lymph node recurrences. Therefore, lymphadenectomy, radical dissection directly at the celiac and mesenteric vessels including resection of the periarterial nerve plexus and vascular resection are starting points for improving surgical resection techniques. The safety and efficacy of radical resection techniques in the context of multimodal treatment of pancreatic cancer have to be further evaluated in prospective studies.

Resection is the only curative treatment option for pancreatic cancer patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy can improve disease-free survival and overall survival after resection. Furthermore, neoadjuvant treatment protocols are currently being investigated in a large number of studies.Summary of the current evidence for adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment.Review of the current scientific literature and guidelines.After resection for pancreatic cancer patients should receive intensive chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine or gemcitabine/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy. Neoadjuvant treatment concepts are promising but have to be further evaluated in prospective studies.

To assess the relevance of resection margin status for survival outcome after resection and adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.The definitions for R0 and R1 margin status after resection for pancreatic cancer are controversial. The strict definition of R0 requiring a 1 mm tumor-free margin is not commonly accepted. Reported R0/R1 rates and associated survival are highly heterogeneous.A standardized protocol with rigorous assessment of circumferential margins and the R0 definition with a 1 mm free margin were introduced into clinical routine in 2005. From a prospective database, patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2006 and December 12, 2012 were identified. The rates of R0 (≥1 mm margin), R1 (1 mm clearance), and R1 (direct margin involvement) status and associated survival were assessed by uni- and multivariable analyses.Of 561 patients included, 112 patients (20.0%) had R0 and 449 patients (80.0%) had R1 resections, including 123 (21.9%) R1 (≤1 mm) and 326 (58.1%) R1 (direct) resections. A total of 438 (85.9%) received adjuvant therapy. With R0, R1 (1 mm), and R1 (direct) status the median survival times and 5-year survival rates were 41.6, 27.5, and 23.4 months; and 37.7%, 30.1%, and 20.3%, respectively (P0.0001). By multivariable analysis, margin status was confirmed to be independently associated with survival.In the context of adjuvant therapy, the resection margin status remains an important independent determinant of postresection survival. R0/R1 resection rates and associated survival vary significantly with the definitions used. An international consensus is urgently needed to achieve comparability with respect to studies and protocols on patients with adjuvant therapy.

Due to increasing precision of modern imaging modalities, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas are found with increasing prevalence. Despite their malignant potential IPMN are often kept under surveillance and are not immediately resected. The 2012 International Consensus Guidelines of Fukuoka have been widely accepted for the management of IPMN. They recommend surgical resection for branch duct IPMN with "high risk stigmata", while branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features" should undergo observation without immediate resection. Consequently, patients with asymptomatic branch duct IPMN and a presumed low malignant potential mostly undergo primary surveillance to avoid surgery-related morbidity and mortality following pancreatic resection; however, with respect to the cumulative risk of malignant transformation over time, surgical resection might also be indicated for patients with branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features". This article discusses the indications for surgery and different options of resection of branch duct IPMN.