The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update.

METHODS

Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR).

BACKGROUND

There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs.

RESULTS

There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

The Role of Salvage Transplantation in Patients Initially Treated With Open Versus Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery: An Intention-to-Treat Analysis

Despite gaining wide consensus in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been poorly investigated for its role in the setting of salvage liver transplantation (SLT). A multicenter retrospective analysis was carried out in 6 Italian centers on 211 patients with HCC who were initially resected with open (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and eventually wait-listed for SLT. The secondary endpoint was identification of risk factors for posttransplant death and tumor recurrence. The enrolled patients included 211 HCC patients resected with open surgery (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and wait-listed for SLT between January 2007 and December 2017. We analyzed the intention-to-treat survival of these patients. MILS was the most important protective factor for the composite risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.63; P = 0.003). MILS was also the only independent protective factor for the risk of post-SLT patient death (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P = 0.04). After propensity score matching, MILS was the only independent protective factor against the risk of delisting, posttransplant death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.75; P = 0.02). On the basis of the current analysis, MILS seems protective over open surgery for the risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and tumor recurrence. Larger prospective studies balancing liver function and tumor stage are strongly favored to better clarify the beneficial effect of MILS for HCC patients eventually referred to SLT.

Benefits of temporary portocaval shunt during orthotopic liver transplantation with vena cava preservation: A propensity score analysis

During orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), clamping of the portal vein induces splanchnic venous congestion and accumulation of noxious compounds. These adverse effects could increase ischemia/reperfusion injury and subsequently the risk of graft dysfunction, especially for grafts harvested from extended criteria donors (ECDs). Temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS) could prevent these complications. Between 2002 and 2013, all OLTs performed in our center were retrospectively analyzed and a propensity score matching analysis was used to compare the effect of TPCS in 686 patients (343 in each group). Patients in the TPCS group required fewer intraoperative transfusions (median number of packed red blood cells-5 versus 6; P = 0.02; median number of fresh frozen plasma-5 versus 6; P = 0.02); had improvement of postoperative biological parameters (prothrombin time, Factor V, international normalized ratio, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels); and showed significant reduction of biliary complications (4.7% versus 10.2%; P = 0.006). Survival analysis revealed that TPCS improved 3-month graft survival (94.2% versus 88.6%; P = 0.01) as well as longterm survival of elderly (ie, age > 70 years) donor grafts (P = 0.02). In conclusion, the use of TPCS should be recommended especially when considering an ECD graft. Liver Transplantation 23 174-183 2017 AASLD.

A case of portal vein arterialization after a liver transplant

Hepatic artery thrombosis represents a potentially deadly complication after a liver transplant. Portal vein arterialization recently has been proposed as a bridge approach in patients with hepatic artery thrombosis needing a retransplant. We report the case of a 53-year-old man treated with a liver transplant for a cryptogenetic cirrhosis. One month after a liver transplant, a hepatic artery thrombosis was documented, and a portal vein arterialization as bridge therapy for another liver transplant was performed. After surgery, improvement in the patient's liver functioning was seen. No signs of portal hypertension or hepatic abscesses were documented. Unfortunately, 8 months after the liver transplant, the patient experienced a severe urinary infection caused by a multidrug-resistant Klebsiella and died. An increase in the oxygen supply to the liver parenchyma after portal vein arterializations represents rationale use for managing hepatic artery thromboses. Several cases of treating post liver transplant hepatic artery thromboses have been reported in the literature. Portal vein arterializations can be used as bridge therapy in well-selected situations of post-liver transplant hepatic artery thromboses. Strict surveillance should be used to prevent the onset of complications that can exclude a patient from a transplant. The correct timing for retransplant is not fully known, but we think the shorter the time to retransplant, the better is the patient survival.