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.

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice.

Background: The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). Hypothesis: There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. Methods: A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Results: Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Conclusions: Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines.

Medium-Term Results of Combined Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy and Modified Jejuno-Ileal Bypass in Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The ideal bariatric operation achieves 70-100 % maintained excess weight loss, is simple with low operative risks, and maintains absorption of trace elements. Our aim was to find a bariatric procedure that achieves the above while avoiding drawbacks of current options. METHODS: A standard sleeve gastrectomy was combined with a modified jejuno-ileal bypass dividing the small bowel 75 cm distal to the duodeno-jejunal flexure, anastomosing it to the ileum 75 cm proximal to the ileocaecal valve. Operative and follow-up data were collected prospectively between December 2004 and January 2013. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight procedures were analysed (110 female, 58 male). Mean patient age was 43 years (IQR 37-47), and median preoperative body mass index (kg/m(2)) was 52 (IQR 49-59). All operations were completed laparoscopically. Excess weight loss was 78 % (IQR 70-83 %, 12 months, n = 168), 79 % (IQR 70-85 %, 24 months), maintained at most recent follow-up with 77 % (IQR 68-84 %, n = 168), and for 8 year follow-up alone 75 % (IQR 66-84 %, n = 18). There was no operative mortality and 5.4 % morbidity. A 6.5 % of patients experienced transient vomiting. No symptoms of dumping or bacterial overgrowth were observed. All had normal liver enzymes. Hypocalcaemia (20.8 %) and zinc deficiency (25.6 %) resolved with oral supplementation. Type 2 diabetes mellitus resolved in 80.3 % and improved in the remainder of patients, hypertension resolved in 92.3 % and improved in the rest. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst currently an investigative procedure, and within the studies limitations combined sleeve gastrectomy with modified jejuno-ileal bypass is safe and effective, and evades many problems associated with current bariatric operations whilst offering maintained excess weight loss.

Absence of a Periampullary Mass on Cross-sectional Imaging Delays Diagnosis and Time to Pancreatoduodenectomy But Does Not Impair Outcome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether the lack of a radiological mass in patients with periampullary malignancies led to protracted diagnosis, delayed resection, and an inferior outcome. METHODS: The departmental database was interrogated to identify all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy during the period 2000-2014. The absence of a mass on cross-sectional and endoscopic ultrasound was noted. The interval between imaging and surgery was evaluated and related to the absence of a mass. The relationship between mass/no mass and the pathological profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Among 490 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary malignancies, masses were detected in 299 patients. Patients with undetected mass on either endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) had a longer median interval from initial imaging to resection than detected mass with no difference in survival (66 vs. 41 days, p = 0.001). The absence of a mass was more common in cholangiocarcinomas (p < 0.001). The absence of a mass on imaging was associated with smaller size on final histopathology (2.4 vs. 2.8 cm; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a mass with all modalities in patients with a periampullary malignancy leads to a delayed diagnosis without a significant effect on survival.

Robotic surgery of the pancreas.

Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many intra-abdominal pathologies the overwhelming majority of pancreatic surgery is performed in an open fashion. This is attributed to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas, its intimate relationship to major vasculature and the complexity of reconstruction in the case of pancreatoduodenectomy. Herein, we describe the application of robotic technology to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The unique capabilities of the robotic platform have made the minimally invasive approach feasible and safe with equivalent if not better outcomes (e.g., decreased length of stay, less surgical site infections) to conventional open surgery. However, it is unclear whether the robotic approach is truly superior to traditional laparoscopy; this is a key point given the substantial costs associated with procuring and maintaining robotic capabilities.