Management and outcomes of hemorrhage after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter study at high volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Data on clinically relevant post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (CR-PPH) are derived from series mostly focused on pancreatoduodenectomy, and data after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are scarce. METHODS: All non-extended DP performed from 2014 to 2018 were included. CR-PPH encompassed grade B and C PPH. Risk factors, management, and outcomes of CR-PPH were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 1188 patients were included, of which 561 (47.2 %) were operated on minimally invasively. Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 574 patients (48.4 %). Ninety-day mortality, severe morbidity and CR-POPF rates were 1.1 % (n = 13), 17.4 % (n = 196) and 15.5 % (n = 115), respectively. After a median interval of 8 days (range, 0-37), 65 patients (5.5 %) developed CR-PPH, including 28 grade B and 37 grade C. Reintervention was required in 57 patients (87.7 %). CR-PPH was associated with a significant increase of 90-day mortality, morbidity and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Upon multivariable analysis, prolonged operative time and co-existing POPF were independently associated with CR-PPH (p < 0.005) while a chronic use of antithrombotic agent trended towards an increase of CR-PPH (p = 0.081). As compared to CR-POPF, the failure-to-rescue rate in patients who developed CR-PPH was significantly higher (13.8 % vs. 1.3 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CR-PPH after DP remains rare but significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality and failure-to-rescue.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis. BACKGROUND: Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain. METHODS: This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

Liver Venous Deprivation or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy?: A Retrospective Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 techniques of remnant liver hypertrophy in candidates for extended hepatectomy: radiological simultaneous portal vein embolization and hepatic vein embolization (HVE); namely LVD, and ALPPS. BACKGROUND: Recent advances in chemotherapy and surgical techniques have widened indications for extended hepatectomy, before which remnant liver augmentation is mandatory. ALPPS and LVD typically show higher hypertrophy rates than portal vein embolization, but their respective places in patient management remain unclear. METHODS: All consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures performed in 8 French centers between 2011 and 2020 were included. The main endpoint was the successful resection rate (resection rate without 90-day mortality) analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Secondary endpoints were hypertrophy rates, intra and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Among 209 patients, 124 had LVD 37 [13,1015] days before surgery, whereas 85 underwent ALPPS with an inter-stages period of 10 [6, 69] days. ALPPS was mostly-performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), LVD for CRLM and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hypertrophy was faster for ALPPS. Successful resection rates were 72.6% for LVD ± rescue ALPPS (n = 6) versus 90.6% for ALPPS (P < 0.001). Operative duration, blood losses and length-of-stay were lower for LVD, whereas 90-day major complications and mortality were comparable. Results were globally unchanged for CRLM patients, or after excluding the early 2 years of experience (learning-curve effect). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first 1 comparing LVD versus ALPPS in the largest cohort so far. Despite its retrospective design, it yields original results that may serve as the basis for a prospective study.

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.