Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?

OBJECTIVE: Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life. RESULTS: After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.

Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk procedures such as pancreatic resection. METHODS: We did an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that included all patients having pancreatic resection during a 22-month period in the Netherlands. In this trial design, all 17 centres that did pancreatic surgery were randomly allocated for the timing of the crossover from usual care (the control group) to treatment given in accordance with a multimodal, multidisciplinary algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of postoperative complications (the intervention group). Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated scheme, stratified to ensure that low-medium-volume centres alternated with high-volume centres. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment. A smartphone app was designed that incorporated the algorithm and included the daily evaluation of clinical and biochemical markers. The algorithm determined when to do abdominal CT, radiological drainage, start antibiotic treatment, and remove abdominal drains. After crossover, clinicians were trained in how to use the algorithm during a 4-week wash-in period; analyses comparing outcomes between the control group and the intervention group included all patients other than those having pancreatic resection during this wash-in period. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding that required invasive intervention, organ failure, and 90-day mortality, and was assessed by a masked adjudication committee. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL6671. FINDINGS: From Jan 8, 2018, to Nov 9, 2019, all 1805 patients who had pancreatic resection in the Netherlands were eligible for and included in this study. 57 patients who underwent resection during the wash-in phase were excluded from the primary analysis. 1748 patients (885 receiving usual care and 863 receiving algorithm-centred care) were included. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the algorithm-centred care group than in the usual care group (73 [8%] of 863 patients vs 124 [14%] of 885 patients; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 95% CI 0·38-0·61; p<0·0001). Among patients treated according to the algorithm, compared with patients who received usual care there was a decrease in bleeding that required intervention (47 [5%] patients vs 51 [6%] patients; RR 0·65, 0·42-0·99; p=0·046), organ failure (39 [5%] patients vs 92 [10%] patients; 0·35, 0·20-0·60; p=0·0001), and 90-day mortality (23 [3%] patients vs 44 [5%] patients; 0·42, 0·19-0·92; p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: The algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of complications after pancreatic resection considerably improved clinical outcomes compared with usual care. This difference included an approximate 50% reduction in mortality at 90 days. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and UMC Utrecht.

Pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a worldwide survey among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to assess practices regarding pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy on a global basis. METHODS: This survey study among surgeons from eight (inter)national scientific societies was performed according to the CHERRIES guideline. RESULTS: Overall, 236 surgeons completed the survey. ERAS protocols are used by 61% of surgeons and respectively 82%, 93%, 57% believed there is a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy, and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes. Epidural analgesia (50%) was most popular followed by intravenous morphine (24%). A restrictive fluid therapy was used by 58% of surgeons. Chemical thromboprophylaxis was used by 88% of surgeons. Variations were observed between continents, most interesting being the choice for analgesic technique (transversus abdominis plane block was popular in North America), restrictive fluid therapy (little use in Asia and Oceania) and duration of chemical thromboprophylaxis (large variation). CONCLUSION: The results of this international survey showed that only 61% of surgeons practice ERAS protocols. Although the majority of surgeons presume a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes, variations in practices were observed. Additional studies are needed to further optimize, standardize and implement ERAS protocols after pancreatic surgery.

International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice: From the Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. RESULTS: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis (APEC): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Systematic review on percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy versus surgery in symptomatic simple hepatic cysts.

BACKGROUND: Simple hepatic cysts (SHC) may cause pain and bloating and thus impair quality of life. Whereas current guidelines recommend laparoscopic cyst deroofing, percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy (PAS) may be used as a less invasive alternative. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of PAS and surgical management in patients with symptomatic SHC. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed and Embase was performed according to PRISMA-guidelines. Studies reporting symptoms were included. Methodological quality was assessed by the MINORS-tool. Primary outcomes were symptom relief, symptomatic recurrence and quality of life, for which a meta-analysis of proportions was performed. RESULTS: In total, 736 patients from 34 studies were included of whom 265 (36%) underwent PAS, 348 (47%) laparoscopic cyst deroofing, and 123 (17%) open surgical management. During weighted mean follow-up of 26.1, 38.2 and 21.3 months, symptoms persisted in 3.5%, 2.1%, 4.2%, for PAS, laparoscopic and open surgical management, respectively. Major complication rates were 0.8%, 1.7%, and 2.4% and cyst recurrence rates were 0.0%, 5.6%, and 7.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of PAS for symptomatic SHC appear to be excellent. Studies including a step-up approach which reserves laparoscopic cyst deroofing for symptomatic recurrence after one or two PAS procedures are needed.

Technique and audited outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combining the clockwise approach, progressive stepwise compression technique, and staple line reinforcement.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has proven advantages over its open counterpart and is becoming more frequently performed around the world. It still remains a difficult operation due to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas and limited experience and training with the procedure. In addition, complications such as bleeding or postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remain a problem. A standardized approach to LDP with stepwise graded compression technique for pancreatic transection has been utilized at a single center, and we sought to describe the technique and determine the outcomes. METHODS: A review of all patients undergoing LDP by a clockwise approach including the graded compression technique from August 1, 2008 to December 31, 2017 was performed. An external audit was performed by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. RESULTS: Overall, 260 patients with a mean age and a BMI of 62.3 and 28, respectively, underwent LDP using this technique. Mean operative time and blood loss were 183 min and 248 mL, respectively,. Hand-assisted method and conversion to open were both 5%. Major morbidity and mortality were 9.2% and 0.4%, respectively,. POPF was noted in 8.1%. The technical steps include (1) mobilization of the splenic flexure of the colon and exposure of the pancreas, (2) dissection along the inferior edge of the pancreas and choosing the site for pancreatic division, (3) pancreatic parenchymal division using a progressive stepwise compression technique with staple line reinforcement, (4) ligation of the splenic vein and artery, (5) dissection along the superior edge of the pancreas and residual posterior attachments, and (6) mobilization of the spleen and specimen removal. CONCLUSION: LDP with a clockwise approach for dissection, combined with the progressive stepwise compression technique for pancreatic transection, resulted in excellent outcomes including a very low POPF rate.

Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) has been expanding in the past decade. Excellent outcomes have been reported, however, safety concerns exist. The aim of this study was to define prerequisites for performing MIPR with the objective to guide safe implementation of MIPR into clinical practice. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for literature concerning the implementation of MIPR between 1946 and November 2018. Quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). RESULTS: Overall, 1150 studies were screened, of which 32 studies with 8519 patients were included in this systematic review. Training programs for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have been described with acceptable outcomes during the learning curve and improved outcomes after training. Learning curve studies have revealed an association between growing experience and improving perioperative outcomes. In addition, the association between higher center volume and lower mortality and morbidity has been reported by several studies. CONCLUSION: When embarking on MIPR, it is recommended to participate in a dedicated training program, to assure a sufficient volume, especially when implementing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, (20 procedures recommended annually), and prospectively collect and closely monitor outcomes for continuous quality assessment, this can be achieved through institutional databases and participation in national or international registries.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

A systematic review of advanced endoscopy-assisted lithotripsy for retained biliary tract stones: laser, electrohydraulic or extracorporeal shock wave.

BACKGROUND: When conventional endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones is impossible or fails, advanced endoscopy-assisted lithotripsy can be performed by electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL), laser lithotripsy, or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). No systematic review has compared efficacy and safety between these techniques. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for studies investigating EHL, laser lithotripsy, and ESWL in patients with retained biliary tract stones. RESULTS: After screening 795 studies, 32 studies with 1969 patients undergoing EHL (n = 277), laser lithotripsy (n = 426) or ESWL (n = 1266) were included. No randomized studies were available. Although each advanced lithotripsy technique appeared to be highly effective, laser lithotripsy had a higher complete ductal clearance rate (95.1 %) than EHL (88.4 %) and ESWL (84.5 %; P  < 0.001). In addition, a higher stone fragmentation rate was reported for laser lithotripsy (92.5 %) than for EHL (75.5 %) and ESWL (89.3 %; P < 0.001). The post-procedural complication rate was significantly higher for patients treated with EHL (13.8 %) than for patients treated with ESWL (8.4 %) or laser lithotripsy (9.6 %; P = 0.04). Data on the recurrence rate of the biliary tract stones were lacking. CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed that laser lithotripsy appeared to be the most successful advanced endoscopy-assisted lithotripsy technique for retained biliary tract stones, although randomized studies are lacking.

Percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous procedure for the management of bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy: short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) remains a daunting complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients with complex BDI, a percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may be required to establish bile duct continuity. The aim of this study was to assess short- and long-term outcomes of the rendezvous procedure. METHODS: All consecutive patients with BDI referred to our tertiary referral center between 1995 and 2016 were analyzed. A rendezvous procedure was performed when endoscopic or radiologic intervention failed, and when deemed feasible by a dedicated multidisciplinary team including hepatopancreaticobiliary surgeons, gastrointestinal endoscopists, and interventional radiologists. Classification of BDI, technical success of the rendezvous procedure, procedure-related adverse events, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among a total of 812 patients, rendezvous was performed in 47 (6 %), 31 (66 %) of whom were diagnosed with complete transection of the bile duct (Amsterdam type D/Strasberg type E injury). The primary success rate of rendezvous was 94 % (44 /47 patients). Overall morbidity was 18 % (10 /55 procedures). No life-threatening adverse events or 90-day mortality occurred. After a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range 23 - 54 months), rendezvous was the final successful treatment in 26 /47 patients (55 %). In 14 /47 patients (30 %), rendezvous acted as a bridge to surgery, with hepaticojejunostomy being chosen either primarily or secondarily to treat refractory or relapsing stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, rendezvous was a safe procedure, with a long-term success rate of 55 %. When endoscopic or transhepatic interventions fail to restore bile duct continuity in patients with BDI, rendezvous should be considered, either as definitive treatment or as a bridge to elective surgery.

Outcomes After Conservative, Endoscopic, and Surgical Treatment of Groove Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Groove pancreatitis (GP) is a focal form of chronic pancreatitis affecting the paraduodenal groove area, for which consensus on diagnosis and management is lacking. GOALS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine patient characteristics and imaging features of GP and to evaluate clinical outcomes after treatment. RESULTS: Eight studies were included reporting on 335 GP patients with a median age of 47 years (range, 34 to 64 y), with 90% male, 87% smokers, and 87% alcohol consumption, and 47 months (range, 15 to 122 mo) of follow-up. Most patients presented with abdominal pain (91%) and/or weight loss (78%). Imaging frequently showed cystic lesions (91%) and duodenal stenosis (60%).Final treatment was conservative (eg, pain medication) in 29% of patients. Endoscopic treatment (eg, pseudocyst drainage) was applied in 19% of patients-34% of these patients were subsequently referred for surgery. Overall, 59% of patients were treated surgically (eg, pancreatoduodenectomy). Complete symptom relief was observed in 50% of patients who were treated conservatively, 57% who underwent endoscopic treatment, and 79% who underwent surgery. CONCLUSIONS: GP is associated with male gender, smoking, and alcohol consumption. The vast majority of patients presents with abdominal pain and with cystic lesions on imaging. Although surgical treatment seems to be the most effective, both conservative and endoscopic treatment are successful in about half of patients. A stepwise treatment algorithm starting with the least invasive treatment options seems advisable.

Assessment of available evidence in the management of gallbladder and bile duct stones: a systematic review of international guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease is a frequent disorder in the Western world with a prevalence of 10-20%. Recommendations for the assessment and management of gallstones vary internationally. The aim of this systematic review was to assess quality of guideline recommendations for treatment of gallstones. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and websites of relevant associations were systematically searched. Guidelines without a critical appraisal of literature were excluded. Quality of guidelines was determined using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations without consensus or with low level of evidence were considered to define problem areas and clinical research gaps. RESULTS: Fourteen guidelines were included. Overall quality of guidelines was low, with a mean score of 57/100 (standard deviation 19). Five of 14 guidelines were considered suitable for use in clinical practice without modifications. Ten recommendations from all included guidelines were based on low level of evidence and subject to controversy. These included major topics, such as definition of symptomatic gallstones, indications for cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiography. CONCLUSION: Only five guidelines on gallstones are evidence-based and of a high quality, but even in these controversy exists on important topics. High quality evidence is needed in specific areas before an international guideline can be developed and endorsed worldwide.

Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections: a paradigm shift away from "See one, Do one, Teach one".

BACKGROUND: Increased incorporation of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) has emerged into hepato-pancreato-biliary practice, however, no standardization exists for its safe adoption. Novel strategies are presented for dissemination of safe MIPR. METHODS: An international State-of-the-Art conference evaluating multiple aspects of MIPR was conducted by a panel of pancreas experts in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 20, 2016. Training and education issues were discussed regarding the introduction of novel strategies for safe dissemination of MIPR. RESULTS: The low volume of pancreatic resections per institution poses a challenge for surgeons to overcome their MIPR learning curve without deliberate training. A mastery-based simulation and biotissue curriculum can improve technical proficiency and allow for training of surgeons before the operating room. Video-based platforms allow for performance reporting and feedback necessary for coaching and surgical quality improvement. Centers of excellence with training involving a standardized approach and proctorship are important concepts that can be utilized in various formats internationally. DISCUSSION: Surgical volume is not sufficient to ensure quality and patient safety in MIPR. Safe adoption of these complex procedures should consider innovative mastery-based training outside of the operating room, novel video based coaching techniques and prospective reporting of patient data and outcomes using standardized definitions.

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Systematic review on the use of matrix-bound sealants in pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistula is a potentially life-threatening complication after a pancreatic resection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the role of matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection in terms of preventing or ameliorating the course of a post-operative pancreatic fistula. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the literature from May 2005 to April 2015. Included were clinical studies using matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection, reporting a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula classification, in which grade B and C fistulae were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Two were studies on patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (sealants n = 67, controls n = 27) and four studies on a distal pancreatectomy (sealants n = 258, controls n = 178). After a pancreatoduodenectomy, 13% of patients treated with sealants versus 11% of patients without sealants developed a POPF (P = 0.76), of which 4% versus 4% were clinically relevant (P = 0.87). After a distal pancreatectomy, 42% of patients treated with sealants versus 52% of patients without sealants developed a POPF (P = 0.03). Of these, 9% versus 12% were clinically relevant (P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The present data do not support the routine use of matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection, as there was no effect on clinically relevant POPF. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to determine the efficacy of sealants in preventing POPF after a pancreatoduodenectomy.

Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.