Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial

Background

Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407).

Findings

Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD.

Interpretation

In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial

BACKGROUND

Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021.

RESULTS

For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

Oncological recurrence following pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with esophageal cancer - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate recurrence in patients with post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR) and in patients with complete response of primary tumor but persisting lymphatic spread of disease (non-pCR, ypT0ypN +) of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients (63 pCR, 12 non-pCR) were analyzed retrospectively. Pattern and incidence of local and distant recurrence as well as the impact on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to FLOT protocol was compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to CROSS protocol.

RESULTS

In the pCR group, isolated local recurrence was diagnosed in 3%, while no isolated local recurrence was observed in the non-pCR group due to the high incidence of distant recurrence. Distant recurrence was most common in both cohorts (isolated distant recurrence: pCR group 10% to non-pCR group 55%; simultaneous distant and local recurrence: pCR group 3% to non-pCR group 18%). Median time to distant recurrence was 5.5 months, and median time to local recurrence was 8.0 months. Cumulative incidence of distant recurrence (with and without simultaneous local recurrence) was 16% (± 6%) in pCR patients and 79% (± 13%) in non-pCR patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.123) estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. OS (HR 0.231) and DFS (HR 0.226) were significantly improved in patients with pCR compared to patients with non-pCR. Advantages for FLOT protocol compared to CROSS protocol, especially with regard to distant control of disease (HR 0.278), were observed (OS (HR 0.361), DFS (HR 0.226)).

CONCLUSION

Distant recurrence is the predominant site of treatment failure in patients with pCR and non-pCR grade 1a regression, whereby recurrence rates are much higher in patients with non-pCR.

Postoperative Hiatal Hernia after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy-A Growing Problem in the Age of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Even though minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe and oncologically effective procedure, several authors have reported an increased risk of postoperative hiatal hernia (PHH). This study evaluates the incidence and risk factors of PHH after hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was performed on patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between January 2009 and April 2018. Computed tomography scans and patient files were reviewed to identify the PHH.

RESULTS

306 patients were included (152 HMIE; 154 OE). Of these, 23 patients (8%) developed PHH. Most patients (13/23, 57%) were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis and only 4 patients (17%) presented in an emergency setting with incarceration. The rate of PHH was significantly higher after HMIE compared to OE (13.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). No other risk factors for the development of PHH were identified in uni- or multi-variate analysis. Surgical repair of PHH was performed in 19/23 patients (83%). The recurrence rate of PHH after surgical repair was 32% (6/19 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of PHH is a relevant complication after hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy. Although most patients are asymptomatic, surgical repair is recommended to avoid incarceration with potentially fatal outcomes. Innovative techniques for the prevention and repair of PHH are urgently needed.

Proximal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction vs total gastrectomy in gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500)

BACKGROUND

In Germany and Western Europe, gastroesophageal junction cancer (AEG) and proximal gastric cancer are currently treated with (transhiatal-extended) total gastrectomy (TG) according to the latest treatment guidelines. TG leads to a severe and long-lasting impairment of postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treated patients. Recent studies have suggested that HRQoL of these patients could be improved by proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) without compromising oncologic safety. Our aim is therefore to conduct a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing PG-DTR with TG in AEG II/III and gastric cancer patients with overall survival as primary endpoint and HRQoL as key secondary endpoint.

METHODS

This protocol is written with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P 2015) statement. We will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. We will also check references of relevant studies and perform a cited reference research. Titles and abstracts of the records identified by the searches will be screened, and full texts of all potentially relevant articles will be obtained. We will consider randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias of the included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.4 (Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will identify the current study pool concerning the comparison of TG and PG-DTR and help to finally refine the research questions and to allow an evidence-based trial design of the planned multicenter randomized-controlled trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Study findings will be shared by publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021291500.

Conventional partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus an extended pancreatoduodenectomy (triangle operation) for pancreatic head cancers-study protocol for the randomised controlled TRIANGLE trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth most frequent cause of cancer-related death in the Western world, and its incidence is rising. In patients that undergo curative resection, local recurrence (LR) is frequent. A recently described surgical technique of extended pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) termed the TRIANGLE operation has been proposed as a promising approach to reduce LR and improve disease-free survival in PDAC patients.

METHODS

The TRIANGLE trial is a multicentre confirmatory randomised controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 270 patients with suspected or histologically confirmed pancreatic head cancer scheduled for PD will be included in the trial and randomly assigned to the intervention group (extended PD defined as Inoue level 3 dissection along the superior mesenteric and celiac artery as well as removal of all soft tissue in the so-called triangle between the celiac artery, the SMA and the mesenterico-portal axis) or the control group (conventional PD with lymphadenectomy and removal of soft tissue according to current guidelines). The primary endpoint of the trial will be the disease-free survival of patients. Other perioperative outcomes as well as oncological parameters and patient-reported outcomes will be analysed as secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Despite multimodal treatment, LR remains high and disease-free survival is limited following PD for PDAC. The TRIANGLE operation could address these shortcomings of conventional PD as indicated in several retrospective studies. However, this technique could be associated with more adverse events for patients including intractable diarrhoea. The TRIANGLE trial will close the evidence gap as well as offer a risk-benefit assessment of this more radical approach to PD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00030576 (UTN U1111-1243-4412) 19th December 2022.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making

BACKGROUND

To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II-III) and gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB-III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B₁₂ levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37-78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.

Pathological complete response in multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

To evaluate pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0ypN0) after neoadjuvant treatment compared with non-complete response (non-CR) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC), and 393 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Survival probability was analyzed in patients with: (i) pCR vs non-CR; (ii) complete response of the primary tumor but persisting lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T0N+) and (iii) pCR and tumor-free lymphnodes exhibiting signs of postneoadjuvant regression vs. no signs of regression. (i) Median overall survival (mOS) was favorable in patients with pCR (pCR: mOS not reached vs. non-CR: 41 months, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that grade of regression was not an independent predictor for prolonged survival. Instead, the achieved postneoadjuvant TNM-stage (T-stage: Hazard ratio [HR] ypT3-T4 vs. ypT0-T2: 1.837; N-stage: HR ypN1-N3 vs. ypN0: 2.046; Postneoadjuvant M-stage: HR ypM1 vs. ycM0: 2.709), the residual tumor (R)-classification (HR R1 vs. R0: 4.195) and the histologic subtype of EC (HR ESCC vs. EAC: 1.688) were prognostic factors. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a devastating prognosis, similar to those with local non-CR and lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T + N+) (non-CR-T0N+: 22.0 months, non-CR-T + N-: mOS not reached, non-CR-T + N+: 23.0 months; P-values: non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N-: 0.016; non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N+: 0.956; non-CR-T + N- vs. non-CR-T + N+: <0.001). Regressive changes in lymphnodes after neoadjuvant treatment did not influence survival-probability in patients with pCR (mOS not reached in each group; EAC-patients: P = 0.0919; ESCC-patients: P = 0.828). Particularly, the achieved postneoadjuvant ypTNM-stage influences the survival probability of patients with EC. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a dismal prognosis, and only true pathological complete response with ypT0ypN0 offers superior survival probabilities.

A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery

The use of digital technology is increasing rapidly across surgical specialities, yet there is no consensus for the term ‘digital surgery’. This is critical as digital health technologies present technical, governance, and legal challenges which are unique to the surgeon and surgical patient. We aim to define the term digital surgery and the ethical issues surrounding its clinical application, and to identify barriers and research goals for future practice. 38 international experts, across the fields of surgery, AI, industry, law, ethics and policy, participated in a four-round Delphi exercise. Issues were generated by an expert panel and public panel through a scoping questionnaire around key themes identified from the literature and voted upon in two subsequent questionnaire rounds. Consensus was defined if >70% of the panel deemed the statement important and <30% unimportant. A final online meeting was held to discuss consensus statements. The definition of digital surgery as the use of technology for the enhancement of preoperative planning, surgical performance, therapeutic support, or training, to improve outcomes and reduce harm achieved 100% consensus agreement. We highlight key ethical issues concerning data, privacy, confidentiality and public trust, consent, law, litigation and liability, and commercial partnerships within digital surgery and identify barriers and research goals for future practice. Developers and users of digital surgery must not only have an awareness of the ethical issues surrounding digital applications in healthcare, but also the ethical considerations unique to digital surgery. Future research into these issues must involve all digital surgery stakeholders including patients.

Actual Five-year Survival After Upfront Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Who Beats the Odds?

OBJECTIVE

To determine actual five-year survival (5YS) rates associated with a strategy of upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

The rate of actual 5YS in PDAC remains controversial. Available data is restricted to cohorts acquired over several decades and series of resection after patient selection by neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

All patients undergoing upfront resection for resectable and borderline-resectable PDAC from 10/2001 to 12/2011 were identified from a prospective database. Actual overall survival was assessed after a follow-up of at least 5 years. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Median survival of 937 patients was 22.1 months. The actual 5YS rate was 17.0% (n = 159) including 89 (9.5%) patients without evidence of disease >5 years after resection. 5YS rates in patients with or without adjuvanttherapy were 18.8% vs. 12.2%, respectively. Tumorgrading, number of positive lymph nodes, a context of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia, and vascular resections were independently associated with 5YS. Patient-related parameters and CA 19-9 levels were associated with observed survival up to 3 years, but lost relevance thereafter. The extent of lymph node involvement was the strongest predictor of 5YS. Patients with pN0R0 had a 5YS rate of 38.2%. in patients with exclusively favorable factors the observed 5YS rate was above 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest series of long-term survivors with histologically confirmed PDAC. With upfront resection and adjuvant therapy an actual overall 5YS rate of 18.8% can be expected. in favorable subgroups actual 5YS is above 50%.

Protocol of a prospective study investigating the association of PAncreatic parenchymal RISk factors with postoperative pancreatic fistula after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PARIS trial)

INTRODUCTION

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for many malignant and benign diseases of the pancreatic head. Postoperative complication rates of up to 40% are regularly reported. One of the most common and potentially life-threatening complication is the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Parenchymal risk factors like main pancreatic duct diameter or texture of the pancreatic gland have already been identified in retrospective studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of parenchymal risk factors on POPF in a prospective manner.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All patients scheduled for elective PD at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery of the University of Heidelberg will be screened for eligibility. As diagnostic factors, diameter and texture of the pancreatic gland as well as radiological and histopathological features will be recorded. Furthermore, the new four class risk classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) will be recorded. The postoperative course will be monitored prospectively. The primary endpoint will be the association of the main pancreatic duct size and the texture of the pancreatic gland on POPF according to the updated ISGPS definition. The diagnostic value of the above-mentioned factors for POPF will be evaluated in a univariable and multivariable analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

PARIS is a monocentric, prospective, diagnostic study to evaluate the association of parenchymal risk factors and the development of POPF approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-344/2019). Results will be available in 2022 and will be published at national and international meetings. With this knowledge, the intraoperative and perioperative decision-making process could be eased and improve the individual outcome of patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00017184.

Arterial Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Effective After a Learning Curve

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perioperative and oncologic long-term outcomes of patients with LAPC after surgical resection at a high-volume center for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND

The role of surgery in LAPC with arterial involvement is controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed 385 consecutive patients undergoing PAR (n = 195) or PAD (n = 190) of the encased artery for LAPC between January 1, 2003 and April 30, 2019.

RESULTS

There were 183 total pancreatectomies, 113 partial pancreatoduodenectomies, 79 distal pancreatectomies, and 10 resections for tumor recurrences, including 121 multivisceral resections and 171 venous resections. Forty-three patients (11.4%) had resectable oligometastatic disease. All of the 190 patients undergoing PAD (100%) and 95 of the 195 patients undergoing PAR (48.7%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The R0 (circumferential resection margin negative) resection rate was 28%. The median hospital stay was 15 days (range: 3-236). The median survival after surgery for LAPC was 20.1 months and the overall 5-year survival rate 12.5%. In-hospital mortality was 8.8% for the entire patient cohort (n = 385). With increasing case load and growing expertise, there was a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality to 4.8% (n = 186) after 2013 (P = 0.005). The learning curve of experienced pancreatic surgeons for PAR was 15 such procedures.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that an arterial surgical approach is effective in LAPC with promising long-term survival. PAD after neoadjuvant treatment is safe. PAR is a technically demanding procedure and requires a high level of expertise.

The TRIANGLE operation for pancreatic head and body cancers: early postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the mainstay of potential cure for patients with pancreatic cancer, however, local recurrence is frequent. Previously, we have described an extended resection technique for pancreatoduodenectomy aiming at a radical resection of the nerve and lymphatic tissue between celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery and mesenteric-portal axis (TRIANGLE operation). Until now, data on postoperative outcome have not been reported, yet.

METHODS

Patients who underwent either partial (PD) or total pancreatoduodenectomy (TP) applying the TRIANGLE procedure were identified. These cohorts were compared to matched historic cohorts with standard resections.

RESULTS

Overall, 330 patients were analysed (PD_TRIANGLE and PD_STANDARD, each n = 108; TP_TRIANGLE and TP_STANDARD, each n = 57). More lymph nodes were harvested in TRIANGLE compared to standard resection (PD: 27.5 (21-35) versus 31.5 (24-40); P = 0.0187, TP: 33 (28-49) versus 44 (29-53); P = 0.3174) and the rate of tumour positive resections margins, R1(direct), dropped. Duration of operation was significantly longer and blood loss higher. Postoperative mortality and complications did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatoduodenectomy according to the TRIANGLE protocol can be performed without increased morbidity and mortality at a high-volume centre. Long-term survival and quality of life need to be investigated in prospective clinical trials with adequate sample size.

Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I2=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

Identification of Recessively Inherited Genetic Variants Potentially Linked to Pancreatic Cancer Risk

Although 21 pancreatic cancer susceptibility loci have been identified in individuals of European ancestry through genome-wide association studies (GWASs), much of the heritability of pancreatic cancer risk remains unidentified. A recessive genetic model could be a powerful tool for identifying additional risk variants. To discover recessively inherited pancreatic cancer risk loci, we performed a re-analysis of the largest pancreatic cancer GWAS, the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan) and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4), including 8,769 cases and 7,055 controls of European ancestry. Six single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) showed associations with pancreatic cancer risk according to a recessive model of inheritance. We replicated these variants in 3,212 cases and 3,470 controls collected from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) consortium. The results of the meta-analyses confirmed that rs4626538 (7q32.2), rs7008921 (8p23.2) and rs147904962 (17q21.31) showed specific recessive effects (p<10-5) compared with the additive effects (p>10-3), although none of the six SNPs reached the conventional threshold for genome-wide significance (p < 5×10-8). Additional bioinformatic analysis explored the functional annotations of the SNPs and indicated a possible relationship between rs36018702 and expression of the BCL2L11 and BUB1 genes, which are known to be involved in pancreatic biology. Our findings, while not conclusive, indicate the importance of considering non-additive genetic models when performing GWAS analysis. The SNPs associated with pancreatic cancer in this study could be used for further meta-analysis for recessive association of SNPs and pancreatic cancer risk and might be a useful addiction to improve the performance of polygenic risk scores.

Prospective trial to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores for survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NURIMAS Pancreas SURVIVAL)

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is associated with poor survival in pancreatic cancer patients. Nutritional scores show great heterogeneity diagnosing malnutrition. The aim of this study was to find the score best suitable to identify patients with malnutrition related to worse survival after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study represents a follow-up study to the prospective NURIMAS Pancreas trial that evaluated short term impact of nutritional score results after surgery.

METHODS

Risk of malnutrition was evaluated preoperatively using 12 nutritional assessment scores. Patients were followed-up prospectively for at least 3 years. Patients at risk for malnutrition were compared with those not at risk according to each score using Kaplan-Meier survival statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients receiving a PDAC resection in curative intent were included. Malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment score (SGA), the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), and the INSYST2 score was associated with worse overall survival (SGA: at-risk: 392 days; not at-risk: 942 days; P = 0.001; SNAQ: at-risk: 508 days; not at-risk: 971 days; P = 0.027; INSYST2: at-risk: 538 days; not at risk: 1068; P = 0.049). In the multivariate analysis, SGA (hazard ratio of death 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.47, P = 0.002) was associated with worse overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Malnutrition as defined by the Subjective Global Assessment is independently associated with worse survival in resected PDAC patients. The SGA should be used to stratify PDAC patients in clinical studies. Severely malnourished patients according to the SGA profit from intensified nutritional therapy should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery-A living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

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 <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%-1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%-61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%-80%) for distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been based on non-randomized studies and reviews of these. Aim of this study was to evaluate if the randomized evidence comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) supports these findings.

METHODS

A prospectively registered (reviewregistry866) systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines comparing LLR to OLR for benign and malignant diseases was performed via Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL up to 31.12.2020. The main outcome was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0, certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2080 results. 13 RCTs assessing mostly minor liver resections with 1457 patients were included. There were reduced odds of experiencing any complication (Odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0·42 [0·30, 0·58]) and severe complications (OR[CI]: 0·51 [0·31, 0·84]) for patients undergoing LLR. LOS was shorter (Mean difference (MD) [CI]: -2·90 [-3·88, -1·92] days), blood loss was lower (MD: [CI]: -115·41 [-146·08, -84·75] ml), and functional recovery was better for LLR. All other outcomes showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR shows significant postoperative benefits. RCTs assessing long-term outcomes and major resections are needed.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Risk of the Watch-and-Wait Concept in Surgical Treatment of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm

Importance

The natural history of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) remains uncertain. The inconsistencies among published guidelines preclude accurate decision-making. The outcomes and potential risks of a conservative watch-and-wait approach vs a surgical approach must be compared.

Objective

To provide an overview of the surgical management of IPMNs, focusing on the time of resection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted in a single referral center; all patients with pathologically proven IPMN who received a pancreatic resection at the institution between October 2001 and December 2019 were analyzed. Preoperatively obtained images and the medical history were scrutinized for signs of progression and/or malignant features. The timeliness of resection was stratified into too early (adenoma and low-grade dysplasia), timely (intermediate-grade dysplasia and in situ carcinoma), and too late (invasive cancer). The perioperative characteristics and outcomes were compared between these groups.

Exposures

Timeliness of resection according to the final pathological findings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The risk of malignant transformation at the final pathology.

Results

Of 1439 patients, 438 (30.4%) were assigned to the too early group, 504 (35.1%) to the timely group, and 497 (34.5%) to the too late group. Radiological criteria for malignant conditions were detected in 53 of 382 patients (13.9%), 149 of 432 patients (34.5%), and 341 of 385 patients (88.6%) in the too early, timely, and too late groups, respectively (P < .001). Patients in the too early group underwent more parenchyma-sparing resections (too early group, 123 of 438 [28.1%]; timely group, 40 of 504 [7.9%]; too late group, 5 of 497 [1.0%]; P < .001), while morbidity (too early group, 112 of 438 [25.6%]; timely group, 117 of 504 [23.2%]; too late group, 158 of 497 [31.8%]; P = .002) and mortality (too early group, 4 patients [0.9%]; timely, 4 [0.8%]; too late, 13 [2.6%]; P = .03) were highest in the too late group. Of the 497 patients in the too late group, 124 (24.9%) had a previous history of watch-and-wait care.

Conclusions and Relevance

Until the biology and progression patterns of IPMN are clarified and accurate guidelines established, a watch-and-wait policy should be applied with caution, especially in IPMN bearing a main-duct component. One-third of IPMNs reach the cancer stage before resection. At specialized referral centers, the risks of surgical morbidity and mortality are justifiable.

Postoperative acute pancreatitis is a serious but rare complication after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The clinical relevance of hyperamylasemia after distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains unclear and no internationally accepted definition of postoperative acute pancreatitis (POAP) exists. The aim of this study was to characterize POAP after DP and to assess the role of serum amylase (SA) in POAP.

METHODS

Outcomes of 641 patients who had undergone DP between 2015 and 2019 were analyzed. Postoperative SA was determined in all patients. POAP was defined based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) or intraoperative findings during relaparotomy.

RESULTS

An elevation of SA on postoperative day 1 (hyperamylasemia^POD1) was found in 398 patients (62.1%). Twelve patients (1.87%) were identified with POAP. Ten patients demonstrated radiologic criteria for POAP and in two patients POAP was diagnosed during relaparotomy. Outcome of POAP patients was worse than that of patients with hyperamylasemia^POD1 alone and that with normal SA^POD1 without POAP evidence (postoperative pancreatic fistula 50% vs 30.6% vs 18.5%; length of hospital stay 26 days vs 12 vs 11, respectively). The overall 90-day mortality of all 641 patients was 0.6%.

CONCLUSION

POAP is a serious but rare complication after DP. Hyperamylasemia^POD1 is of prognostic relevance after DP, but it seems not sufficient as a single parameter to diagnose POAP.

Health-related quality of life in primary hepatic cancer: a systematic review assessing the methodological properties of instruments and a meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are important oncological outcome measures. The validation of HRQoL instruments for patients with hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma is lacking. Furthermore, studies comparing different treatment options in respect to HRQoL are sparse. The objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis was, therefore, to identify all available HRQoL tools regarding primary liver cancer, to assess the methodological quality of these HRQoL instruments and to compare surgical, interventional and medical treatments with regard to HRQoL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE. The methodological quality of all identified HRQoL instruments was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) standard. Consequently, the quality of reporting of HRQoL data was assessed. Finally, wherever possible HRQoL data were extracted and quantitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 124 studies using 29 different HRQoL instruments were identified. After the methodological assessment, only 10 instruments fulfilled the psychometric criteria and could be included in subsequent analyses. However, quality of reporting of HRQoL data was insufficient, precluding meta-analyses for 9 instruments.

CONCLUSION

Using a standardized methodological assessment, specific HRQoL instruments are recommended for use in patients with hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma. HRQoL data of patients undergoing treatment of primary liver cancers are sparse and reporting falls short of published standards. Meaningful comparison of established treatment options with regard to HRQoL was impossible indicating the need for future research.

Self-expanding Metal Stents for Anastomotic Leaks After Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common and severe complication after upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery. Although evidence is scarce, endoscopic deployed self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are well-established for the management of AL in UGI surgery. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of SEMS in terms of success, mortality, and morbidity in patients with AL after UGI cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with AL after primary UGI cancer surgery were retrospectively analyzed with regard to demographics, disease, surgical and endoscopic procedures, and complications. Stent treatment success was divided into technical, primary (within 72 hours of stent deployment), sustained (after 72 hours of stent deployment), and sealing success.

RESULTS

In a total of 63 patients, 74 stents were used and 11 were deployed in endoscopic reinterventions. Stent deployment was successful in all patients. Primary and sustained success rates were 68.3% (n = 43) and 65.1% (n = 41), respectively. Of the primarily successfully treated patients, 87.8% remained successfully treated. If primary treatment was unsuccessful, it remained unsuccessful in 66.6% of the patients (P = 0.002). Final sealing of the leakage was observed in 65.1% of patients (n = 41). Longer stent shafts and wider stent end widths were correlated with successful stent treatment (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SEMS are a safe and sufficient tool in the treatment of AL after UGI cancer surgery. Treatment success is improved with longer stent shafts and wider stent end widths. Switching to alternative treatments is strongly suggested if signs of persistent leakage are present beyond 72 hours after stent placement, as this is highly indicative of sustained stent failure.

Biomarkers in colorectal liver metastases: Rising complexity and unknown clinical significance?

Surgical resection of the liver is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases, but 70% of patients still experience recurrence, resulting in limited survival. Molecular biomarkers promise guidance within the selection process of individualized treatment and provide better prognostic forecasting of recurrence and response to treatment. Presently, most investigated biomarkers include mutations of KRAS, BRAF, TP53, PIK3CA, APC, expression of Ki-67, and microsatellite instability. As some colorectal cancer tumors exhibit more than one molecular target, in line with a rising number of potential biomarkers, the complexity of their clinical implementation is rising steadily. Therefore, it is important to approach new insights into molecular biomarkers with explicit caution to their clinical applicability and significance, as there are contradictory results arising from multiple available studies and meta-analyses. This review helps to shed light on the complexity of promising biomarkers in both the prognosis and diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases.

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery

Background

Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach.

Purpose

This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis.

Conclusions

For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

Prospective trial to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores for survival in pancreatic cancer surgery

Objective

Malnutrition is associated with poor survival in pancreatic cancer patients. Nutritional scores show great heterogeneity diagnosing malnutrition. The aim of this study was to find the score best suitable to identify patients with malnutrition related to worse survival after surgery for PDAC.

Methods

Risk of malnutrition was evaluated preoperatively using twelve nutritional assessment scores. Patients were followed-up prospectively for at least 3 years. Patients at risk for malnutrition were compared to those not at risk according to each score using Kaplan Meier survival statistics.

Results

A total of 116 Patients receiving a PDAC resection in curative intent were included. Malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment score (SGA), the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) and the INSYST2 score was associated with worse overall survival (SGA: at-risk: 392 days; not at-risk: 942 days; p = 0.001; SNAQ: at-risk: 508 days; not at-risk: 971 days; p = 0.027; INSYST2: at-risk: 538 days; not at risk: 1068; p = 0.049). In the multivariate analysis SGA (HR of death 2.22, 95% CI 1.37-3.6, p = 0.002) was associated with worse overall survival.

Conclusion

Malnutrition as defined by the Subjective Global Assessment is independently associated with worse survival in resected PDAC patients. The SGA should be used to stratify PDAC patients in clinical studies. If severely malnourished patients according to the SGA profit from intensified nutritional therapy should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Learning Curves of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy in Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Introduction of a Standardization

BACKGROUND

The most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Impact of learning curves on operative outcome has been well shown, but the necessary learning curves have not been clearly defined. This study provides a systematic review of the literature and proposes a standardization of phases of learning curves for RYGB and LSG.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. All studies specifying a number or range of approaches to characterize the learning curve for RYGB and LSG were selected.

RESULTS

A total of 28 publications related to learning curves for 27,770 performed bariatric surgeries were included. Parameters used to determine the learning curve were operative time, complications, conversions, length of stay, and blood loss. Learning curve range was 30-500 (RYGB) and 30-200 operations (LSG) according to different definitions and respective phases of learning curves. Learning phases described the number of procedures necessary to achieve predefined skill levels, such as competency, proficiency, and mastery.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions of learning curves for bariatric surgery are heterogeneous. Introduction of the three skill phases competency, proficiency, and mastery is proposed to provide a standardized definition using multiple outcome variables to enable better comparison in the future. These levels are reached after 30-70, 70-150, and up to 500 RYGB, and after 30-50, 60-100, and 100-200 LSG. Training curricula, previous laparoscopic experience, and high procedure volume are hallmarks for successful outcomes during the learning curve.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to compare postoperative complications between minimally invasive and open DIStal PAnCreaTectomy (DISPACT-2 trial)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been used with increasing frequency to accelerate patient recovery. Distal pancreatectomy has an overall morbidity rate of 30%-40%. The known advantages of minimally invasive techniques must be rigorously compared with those of open surgery before they can be completely implemented into clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DISPACT-2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive (conventional laparoscopic or robotic assisted) with open distal pancreatic resection in patients undergoing elective surgery for benign as well as malign diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 294 adult patients will be preoperatively randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary hypothesis is that MIDP is non-inferior to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity expressed as the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) within 3 months after index operation, with a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 CCI points. Secondary endpoints include pancreas-specific complications, oncological safety and patient reported outcomes. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 2 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The DISPACT-2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-693/2017). Results of the primary endpoint will be available in 2024 and will be published at national and international meetings. Full results will be made available in an open access, peer-reviewed journal. The website www.dispact.de contains up-to-date information regarding the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00014011.

Feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of endoscopic vacuum therapy for intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following transthoracic esophageal resection

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Especially intrathoracic anastomotic leakage leads to life-threatening complications. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for anastomotic leakage after transthoracic esophageal resection represents a novel concept. However, sound clinical data are still scarce. This retrospective, single-center study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of EVT for intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following abdomino-thoracic esophageal resection.

Methods

From March 2014 to September 2019 259 consecutive patients underwent elective transthoracic esophageal resection. 72 patients (27.8%) suffered from AL. The overall collective in-hospital mortality rate was 3.9% (n = 10). Data from those who underwent treatment with EVT were included.

Results

Fifty-five patients were treated with EVT. Successful closure was achieved in 89.1% (n = 49) by EVT only. The EVT-associated complication rate was 5.4% (n = 3): bleeding occurred in one patient, while minor sedation-related complications were observed in two patients. The median number of EVT procedures per patient was 3. The procedures were performed at intervals of 3–5 days, with a 14-day median duration of therapy. The mortality rate of patients with AL was 7.2% (n = 4). Despite successfully terminated EVT, three patients died because of multiple organ failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and urosepsis (5.4%). One patient (1.8%) died during EVT due to cardiac arrest.

Conclusions

EVT is a safe and effective approach for intrathoracic anastomotic leakages following abdomino-thoracic esophageal resections. It offers a high leakage-closure rate and the potential to lower leakage-related mortalities.

Trial registration: This trial was registered and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg on 16.04.2014 (Registration Number: S-635/2013).

Sub-adventitial divestment technique for resecting artery-involved pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To introduce sub-adventitial divestment technique (SDT), a procedure to remove the tumor while preserving the artery during curative pancreatectomy. Peri-operative safety profile was also evaluated.

METHODS

In a single center consecutive series of pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer, the outcome of patients who had pancreatectomy with SDT was compared to standard pancreatic surgery.

RESULTS

From June 2014 to June 2016, 72 patients had pancreatectomy with SDT and 235 had standard surgery. Tumor stage was T4 in all 72 (100%) tumors removed using SDT compared to four (2%) with standard pancreatectomy (p < 0.001). All 72 (100%) tumors in the SDT group were stage III compared to 24 (10%) in the standard surgery group (p < 0.001). Both groups had a high proportion of poorly differentiated tumors (52 (72%) and 163 (69%) respectively) and perineural tumor invasion (62 (86%) and 186 (79%) respectively). R1 (< 1 mm) was found in 24 (86%) of 28 tumors in the SDT group, and in 72 (60%) out of 120 standard pancreatectomy tumors (p = 0.01). Complications occurred in 29 (40%) of the SDT group and in 88 (37%) of the standard group. The in-hospital mortality was four (6%) in the SDT group and one (0.4%) in the standard group (p = 0.01), with a 90-day mortality of 5 (8%)/60 and 6 (3%)/209 (p = 0.07) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The sub-adventitial divestment technique appeared to be an effective surgical technique to remove the tumor while preserving the artery. This approach warrants further validation in prospective studies.

Minimally Invasive Versus open AbdominoThoracic Esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma (MIVATE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial DRKS00016773

BACKGROUND

The only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS/DESIGN

This superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Meta-analysis of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy for totally implantable venous access port implantation

BACKGROUND

There is still no reference standard for the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). A recently published multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) revealed a significantly greater risk of pneumothorax after closed cannulation than after an open strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an update of the available evidence for the safety and effectiveness of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy.

METHODS

RCTs comparing outcomes of open cut-down of the cephalic vein and closed cannulation of the subclavian vein were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pneumothorax. A beta-binominal model was applied to combine the respective outcomes, and results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 1831 patients were included in final analysis. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant superiority of the open cut-down technique regarding pneumothorax (OR 0.308, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.776), but a statistically significant higher failure of the primary technique for the open cut-down technique than for closed cannulation (OR 2.364, 95% CI 1.051 to 5.315). There were no significant differences between the two procedures regarding other morbidity endpoints.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows a general superiority of open cut-down of the cephalic vein over closed cannulation of the subclavian vein regarding the occurrence of pneumothorax. Open cut-down should be the first-line approach for TIVAP implantation. Closed cannulation should be performed with ultrasound as second-line procedure if the open technique fails.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

Evaluation of robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy-study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial (EUROPA, DRKS00020407)

Background

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the indicated surgical procedure for a wide range of benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and distal bile duct and offers the only potential cure for pancreatic head cancer. The current gold standard, open PD (OPD) performed via laparotomy, is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases, even at specialised centres. Robotic PD (RPD) might offer a viable alternative to OPD and has been shown to be feasible. Encouraging perioperative results have been reported for RPD in a number of small, non-randomised studies. However, since those studies showed a considerable risk of bias, a thorough comparison of RPD with OPD is warranted.

Methods

The EUROPA (EvalUation of RObotic partial PAncreatoduodenectomy) trial is designed as a randomised controlled unblinded exploratory surgical trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 80 patients scheduled for elective PD will be randomised after giving written informed consent. Patients with borderline or non-resectable carcinoma of the pancreatic head as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, distant metastases or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score > III will be excluded. The experimental intervention, RPD, will be compared with the control intervention, OPD. An intraoperative dropout of approximately eight patients per group is expected because they may receive another type of surgical procedure than planned. Overall, 64 patients need to be analysed. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall postoperative morbidity within 90 days after index operation, measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The secondary endpoints include the feasibility of recruitment and assessment of clinical, oncological and safety parameters and quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

The EUROPA trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing RPD with OPD. Differences in postoperative morbidity will be evaluated to design a future multicentre confirmatory efficacy trial.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020407. Registered on 9 March 2020

Prognostic value of inflammatory markers for detecting anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophageal resection is crucial for the successful management of this complication. Inflammatory serological markers are indicators of complications during the postoperative course. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of routine inflammatory markers to predict anastomotic leakage after transthoracic esophageal resection.

METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients undergoing transthoracic esophageal resection between January 2010 and December 2016 were analyzed from a prospective database. Besides clinicodemographic parameters, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count and albumin were analyzed and the Noble/Underwood (NUn) score was calculated to evaluate their predictive value for postoperative anastomotic leakage. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values using area under the receiver operator characteristics curve.

RESULTS

Overall, 233 patients with transthoracic esophageal resection were analyzed, 30-day mortality in this group was 3.4%. 57 patients (24.5%) suffered from AL, 176 patients were in the AL negative group. We found significant differences in WBCC, CRP and NUn scores between patients with and without AL, but the analyzed markers did not show an independent relevant prognostic value. For CRP levels below 155 mg/dl from POD3 to POD 7 the negative predictive value for absence of AI was > 80%. Highest diagnostic accuracy was detected for CRP levels on 4^th POD with a cut-off value of 145 mg/l reaching negative predictive value of 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to their prognostic value in other surgical procedures, CRP, WBCC and NUn score cannot be recommended as independent markers for the prediction of anastomotic leakage after transthoracic esophageal resection. CRP is an accurate negative predictive marker and discrimination of AL and no-AL may be helpful for postoperative clinical management. Trial registration The study was approved by the local ethical committee (S635-2013).

Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

PREventive effect of FENestration with and without clipping on post-kidney transplantation lymphatic complications (PREFEN): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal fenestration is an effective preventive method for reducing the rate of lymphatic complications in kidney transplantation (KTx). The size of the fenestration plays an important role in its effectiveness. A large peritoneal window is no longer indicated, due to herniation and difficulties in performing biopsies. Small preventive fenestration is effective but will be closed too early. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether metal clips around the edges of a small fenestration result in optimal effects with minimum fenestration size.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial has been initiated in July 2019 and is expected to last for 2 and a half years. All patients older than 18 years, who receive kidneys from deceased donors, will be included. The kidney recipients will be randomly allocated to either a control arm (small fenestration alone) or an intervention arm (small fenestration with clipping). All fenestrations will be round, maximum 2 cm, and close to the kidney hilum. Clipping will be performed with eight metal clips around the peritoneal window (360°) in every 45° in an oblique position. The primary endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic post-KTx lymphatic complications, which require interventional treatment within 6 months after KTx. Secondary endpoints are intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including blood loss, operation time, severity grade of lymphocele/lymphorrhea and relative symptoms.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg (Registration Number S-318/2017). A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist is available for this protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03682627).

Periarterial divestment in pancreatic cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Modern pancreatic cancer surgery changed with the introduction of effective neoadjuvant therapies. Complete tumor resection is the mainstay for long-term, disease-free, and overall survival and has been a prerequisite for decreasing local recurrence. The medial resection margin in the area of the superior mesenteric vessels limits the radicalness of the resection, especially in borderline and locally advanced cases. Therefore, the periarterial soft tissue around the peripancreatic visceral arteries must be completely cleared. This procedure, namely periarterial divestment, is technically demanding but often represents an alternative to arterial resection.

OBJECTIVE

Here we describe the technique and our initial experience with periarterial divestment along the peripancreatic visceral arteries during pancreatic surgery. This technique, in combination with previously published resection strategies, such as artery first maneuver and mesenterico-portal venous bypass first, enables tumor resection in locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Periarterial divestment can prevent the need for arterial resection in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, especially after neoadjuvant therapy. The feasibility, improved safety, and oncologic equivalence of arterial divestment versus arterial resection for pancreatic cancer surgery must be evaluated by clinical trials.

Pancreatic resection with perioperative drug repurposing of propranolol and etodolac: trial protocol of the phase-II randomised placebo controlled PROSPER trial

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related death in developed countries. Despite advances in systemic chemotherapy, the mainstay of curative therapy for non-metastatic disease is surgical resection. However, the perioperative period is characterised by stress and inflammatory reactions that can contribute to metastatic spread and disease recurrence. Catecholamines and prostaglandins play a crucial role in these reactions. Therefore, a drug repurposing of betablockers and cyclooxygenase inhibitors seems reasonable to attenuate tumour-associated inflammation by inhibiting psychological, surgical and inflammatory stress responses. This may cause a relevant antitumourigenic and antimetastatic effect during the perioperative period, a window for cancer-directed therapy that is currently largely unexploited.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective, single-centre, two-arm randomised, patient and observer blinded, placebo-controlled, phase-II trial evaluating safety and feasibility of combined perioperative treatment with propranolol and etodolac in adult patients with non-metastatic cancer of the pancreatic head undergoing elective pancreatoduodenectomy. 100 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria will be randomised to perioperative treatment for 25 days perioperatively with a combination of propranolol and etodolac or placebo. Primary outcome of interest will be safety in terms of serious adverse events and reactions within 3 months. Furthermore, adherence to trial medication will be assessed as feasibility outcomes. Preliminary efficacy data will be evaluated for the purpose of power calculation for a potential subsequent phase-III trial. The clinical trial is accompanied by a translational study investigating the mechanisms of action of the combined therapy on a molecular basis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The PROSPER-trial has been approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (reference number 4042875) and the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (reference number AFmo-385/2018). The final trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at appropriate national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

DRKS00014054; EudraCT number: 2018-000415-25.

Hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy: Two different entities

BACKGROUND

Serum amylase activity greater than the institutional upper limit of normal (hyperamylasemia) on postoperative day 0-2 has been suggested as a criterion to define postoperative acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy, but robust evidence supporting this definition is lacking.

BACKGROUND

To assess the clinical impact of hyperamylasemia after pancreatoduodenectomy and to define postoperative acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Data of 1,235 consecutive patients who had undergone pancreatoduodenectomy between January 2010 and December 2014 were extracted from a prospective database and analyzed. Postoperative acute pancreatitis was defined based on the computed tomography severity index. Logistic regression modeling was used to calculate the postoperative acute pancreatitis rate of the entire study population.

RESULTS

Hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 was found in 52% of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients with hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 had statistically significantly greater morbidity and mortality than patients with a normal serum amylase activity on postoperative day 1 with the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula of 14.5% vs 2.1%, and 90-day mortality of 6.6% vs 2.2%, respectively. Of the 364 patients who underwent postoperative computed tomography, 103 (28%) had radiologic signs of acute pancreatitis, thus defining them as having postoperative acute pancreatitis by our definition. Logistic regression modeling showed a 14.7% rate of postoperative acute pancreatitis for the entire patient cohort and 29.2% for patients with hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1. Outcomes of patients with postoperative acute pancreatitis defined based on the computed tomography severity index showed a rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula of 32.4% and a 90-day mortality rate of 11.8%, which were worse than those of patients with hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 alone.

CONCLUSION

Hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 is a frequent finding after pancreatoduodenectomy, but hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 alone is not synonymous with postoperative acute pancreatitis because only 29.2% of such patients have acute pancreatitis based on computed tomography findings. Postoperative acute pancreatitis is a dangerous complication after pancreatoduodenectomy, but its prevalence, according to the gold standard of CT, is not as high as reported previously. Our data suggest that hyperamylasemia on postoperative day 1 and postoperative acute pancreatitis are 2 different entities.

Cavernous transformation of the portal vein in pancreatic cancer surgery-venous bypass graft first

BACKGROUND

In recent years, several techniques have been introduced to allow safe oncologic resections of cancers of the pancreatic head. While resections of the mesenterico-portal axis became now a part of the routine treatment, patients with a cavernous transformation of the portal vein still pose a surgical challenge and are regularly deemed unresectable.

OBJECTIVE

Here, we describe a technique of initial venous bypass graft placement between the superior mesenteric vein or its tributaries and the portal vein before the resection of the pancreatic head. This approach avoids uncontrollable bleeding as well as venous congestion of the intestine with a continuous hepatic perfusion and facilitates oncologic resection of pancreatic head cancers. This technique, in combination with previously published resection strategies, enables tumor resection in locally advanced pancreatic head cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Venous bypass graft first operations facilitate and enable the resection of the pancreatic head cancers in patients with a cavernous transformation of the portal vein thus rendering these patients resectable.

Protocol of a randomised controlled phase II clinical trial investigating PREoperative endoscopic injection of BOTulinum toxin into the sphincter of Oddi to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: the PREBOTPilot trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still the most frequently occurring and clinically relevant complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Preoperative endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin (BTX) into the sphincter of Oddi represents an innovative approach to prevent POPF. The aim of this project (PREBOTPilot) is to generate the first randomised controlled trial data on the safety, feasibility and efficacy of preoperative endoscopic BTX injection into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent clinically relevant POPF following DP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PREBOTPilot is an investigator-initiated, single-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase II clinical trial with two parallel study groups and an exploratory study design. 60 patients scheduled for DP will be randomised to intervention and control group. In the intervention group, patients will undergo preoperative endoscopic injection of BTX into the sphincter of Oddi, whereas in the control group no preoperative endoscopy will be performed. The combined primary endpoint is the occurrence of clinically relevant POPF and/or death within 30 days after DP. The secondary endpoints comprise further postoperative outcome parameters and quality of life up to 3 months after DP as well as safety and feasibility of the procedure. Statistical analysis is based on the modified intention-to-treat population, excluding patients without status post DP. For safety analysis, rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs will be calculated with 95% CIs for group comparisons.

ETHICS, FUNDING AND DISSEMINATION

PREBOTPilot has been approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (reference number 4043654) and the Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number AFmo-523/2019). This trial is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The results of the trial will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00020401.

Prospective study to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores in liver surgery: NURIMAS Liver (DRKS00006340)

Background

Malnutrition is recognised as a preoperative risk factor for patients undergoing hepatic resection. It is important to identify malnourished patients and take preventive therapeutic action before surgery. However, there is no evidence regarding which existing nutritional assessment score (NAS) is best suited to predict outcomes of liver surgery.

Methods

All patients scheduled for elective liver resection at the surgical department of the University Hospital of Heidelberg and the Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe were screened for eligibility. Twelve NASs were calculated before operation, and patients were categorised according to each score as being either at risk or not at risk for malnutrition. The association of malnutrition according to each score and occurrence of at least one major complication was the primary endpoint, which was achieved using a multivariate logistic regression analysis including established risk factors in liver surgery as covariates.

Results

The population consisted of 182 patients. The percentage of patients deemed malnourished by the NAS varied among the different scores, with the lowest being 2.20% (Mini Nutritional Assessment) and the highest 52.20% (Nutritional Risk Classification). Forty patients (22.0%) had a major complication. None of the scores were significantly associated with major complications.

Conclusions

None of the twelve investigated NAS defined a state of malnutrition that was independently associated with postoperative complications. Other means of measuring malnutrition in liver surgery should be investigated prospectively.

Meta-analysis of α-blockade versus no blockade before adrenalectomy for phaeochromocytoma

BACKGROUND

Preoperative α-blockade in phaeochromocytoma surgery is recommended by all guidelines to prevent intraoperative cardiocirculatory events. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the benefit of such preoperative treatment compared with no treatment before adrenalectomy for phaeochromocytoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL without language restrictions. Randomized and non-randomized comparative studies investigating preoperative α-blockade in phaeochromocytoma surgery were included. Data on perioperative safety, effectiveness and outcomes were extracted. Pooled results were calculated as an odds ratio or mean difference with 95 per cent confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of four retrospective comparative studies were included investigating 603 patients undergoing phaeochromocytoma surgery. Mortality, cardiovascular complications, mean maximal intraoperative systolic and diastolic BP, and mean maximal intraoperative heart rate did not differ between patients with or without α-blockade. The certainty of the evidence was very low owing to the inferior quality of studies.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis has shown a lack of evidence for preoperative α-blockade in surgery for phaeochromocytoma. RCTs are needed to evaluate whether preoperative α-blockade can be abandoned.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications.

Objective

To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol.

Interventions

Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution.

Results

Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001)

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy.

METHODS

In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999).

DISCUSSION

Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.