The Laparoscopy in Biliary Exploration Research and Training Initiative (LIBERTI) trial: simulator-based training for laparoscopic management of choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is equivalent in safety and efficacy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) while decreasing number of procedures and length of stay (LOS). Despite these advantages LCBDE is infrequently utilized. We hypothesized that formal, simulation-based training in LCBDE would result in increased utilization and improve patient outcomes across participating institutions. METHODS: Data was obtained from an on-going multi-center study in which simulator-based transcystic LCBDE training curricula were instituted for attending surgeons and residents. A 2-year retrospective review of LCBDE utilization prior to LCBDE training was compared to utilization up to 2 years after initiation of training. Patient outcomes were analyzed between LCBDE strategy and ERCP strategy groups using χ2, t tests, and Wilcoxon rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 50 attendings and 70 residents trained in LCBDE since November 2020. Initial LCBDE utilization rate ranged from 0.74 to 4.5%, and increased among all institutions after training, ranging from 9.3 to 41.4% of cases. There were 393 choledocholithiasis patients analyzed using LCBDE (N = 129) and ERCP (N = 264) strategies. The LCBDE group had shorter median LOS (3 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). No significant differences in readmission rates between LCBDE and ERCP groups (4.7% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.33), or in post-procedure pancreatitis (0.8% v 0.8%, p > 0.98). In comparison to LCBDE, the ERCP group had higher rates of bile duct injury (0% v 3.8%, p = 0.034) and fluid collections requiring intervention (0.8% v 6.8%, p < 0.009) secondary to cholecystectomy complications. Laparoscopic antegrade balloon sphincteroplasty had the highest technical success rate (87%), followed by choledochoscopic techniques (64%). CONCLUSION: Simulator-based training in LCBDE results in higher utilization rates, shorter LOS, and comparable safety to ERCP plus cholecystectomy. Therefore, implementation of LCBDE training is strongly recommended to optimize healthcare utilization and management of patients with choledocholithiasis.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

Patients with deleterious germline mutations: A heterogeneous population for pancreatic cancer screening?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Modest data exist on the benefits of screening and surveillance for pancreatic cancer (PC) in high-risk individuals. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are known precursors to PC. We hypothesized that patients with high-risk deleterious germline mutations have a higher prevalence of IPMN. METHODS: All patients undergoing prospective screening at a single institution from 2013 to 2019 were reviewed. RESULTS: Of 1166 patients screened, 358 (31%) possessed germline mutations and/or family history of PC (mutations n = 201/358, 56%, family history n = 226/358, 63%) (median follow-up 2.7 years). IPMN was found in 127 patients (35.5%). The prevalence of IPMN in mutation carriers (18%) was higher than in the general population (p < 0.01). Germline mutation was an independent predictor of IPMN (odds ratio [OR] = 3.2; p < 0.01), while family history was not (p = 0.22). IPMN prevalence was distributed unevenly between mutation types (67%-Peutz-Jeghers; 43%-HNPCC, 24%-BRCA2; 17%-ATM; 9%-BRCA1; 0%-CDKN2A and PALB2). CONCLUSION: In this series, 18% of mutation carriers harbored IPMN, higher than the general population. Germline mutation, but not a family history of PC, was independently associated with IPMN. This prevalence varied across mutation subtypes, suggesting not all mutation carriers develop precancerous lesions. Genetic testing for patients with a positive family history may improve screening modalities for this high-risk population.

Surgical approach to microwave and radiofrequency liver ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases less than 5 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data. RESULTS: From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm. CONCLUSION: The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of minimally invasive surgery for the surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

BACKGROUND: Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. RESULTS: The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of microwave and radiofrequency liver ablation for the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastases less than 5 cm.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver's two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. RESULTS: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines.

Colon Involvement in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of colon involvement in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: Necrotizing pancreatitis is characterized by a profound inflammatory response with local and systemic implications. Mesocolic involvement can compromise colonic blood supply leading to ischemic complications; however, few data exist regarding this problem. We hypothesized that the development of colon involvement in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) negatively affects morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Six hundred forty-seven NP patients treated between 2005 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients with colon complications, including ischemia, perforation, fistula, stricture/obstruction, and fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Clinical characteristics were analyzed to identify risk factors and effect of colon involvement on morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Colon involvement was seen in 11% (69/647) of NP patients. Ischemia was the most common pathology (n = 29) followed by perforation (n = 18), fistula (n = 12), inflammatory stricture (n = 7), and fulminant C difficile colitis (n = 3). Statistically significant risk factors for developing colon pathology include tobacco use (odds ratio (OR), 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-3.4, P = 0.009), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = 0.04), and respiratory failure (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.1-26.3; P = 0.049). When compared with patients without colon involvement, NP patients with colon involvement had significantly increased overall morbidity (86% vs 96%, P = 0.03) and mortality (8% vs 19%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Colon involvement in necrotizing pancreatitis is common; clinical deterioration should prompt its evaluation. Risk factors include tobacco use, coronary artery disease, and respiratory failure. Colon involvement in necrotizing pancreatitis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality.

Biliary Stricture After Necrotizing Pancreatitis: An Underappreciated Challenge.

OBJECTIVE: Biliary stricture in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) has not been systematically categorized; therefore, we sought to define the incidence and natural history of biliary stricture caused by NP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Benign biliary stricture occurs secondary to bile duct injury, anastomotic narrowing, or chronic inflammation and fibrosis. The profound locoregional inflammatory response of NP creates challenging biliary strictures. METHODS: NP patients treated between 2005 and 2019 were reviewed. Biliary stricture was identified on cholangiography as narrowing of the extrahepatic biliary tree to <75% of the diameter of the unaffected duct. Biliary stricture risk factors and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 743 NP patients, 64 died, 13 were lost to follow-up; therefore, a total of 666 patients were included in the final cohort. Biliary stricture developed in 108 (16%) patients. Mean follow up was 3.5 ±â€Š3.3 years. Median time from NP onset to biliary stricture diagnosis was 4.2 months (interquartile range, 1.8 to 10.9). Presentation was commonly clinical or biochemical jaundice, n = 30 (28%) each. Risk factors for stricture development were splanchnic vein thrombosis and pancreatic head parenchymal necrosis. Median time to stricture resolution was 6.0 months after onset (2.8 to 9.8). A mean of 3.3 ±â€Š2.3 procedures were performed. Surgical intervention was required in 22 (20%) patients. Endoscopic treatment failed in 17% (17/99) of patients and was not associated with stricture length. Operative treatment of biliary stricture was more likely in patients with infected necrosis or NP disease duration ≥6 months. CONCLUSION: Biliary stricture occurs frequently after NP and is associated with splanchnic vein thrombosis and pancreatic head necrosis. Surgical correction was performed in 20%.

Friend or foe? Feeding tube placement at the time of pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score case-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of concomitant gastrostomy or jejunostomy feeding tube (FT) placement during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and its impact on patient outcomes remain controversial. METHODS: NSQIP database was surveyed for patients undergoing PD between 2014 and 2017. FT placement was identified using CPT codes. Propensity scores were used to match the two groups (1:1) on baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables including pancreas specific ones (duct size, gland texture, underlying disease, wound class, use of wound protector, drain placement, type of pancreatic reconstruction and vascular reconstruction). Outcomes were compared. Finally, a subset analyses for patients with delayed gastric emptying (DGE) or postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were performed. RESULTS: Out of 15,224 PD, 1,104 (7.5%) had FT. POPF and DGE rates were 17% and 18%, respectively, for the entire cohort. Feeding jejunostomy was the most placed FT (88.2%). Patients with FT placement were more likely to be older (mean, 65.8 vs. 64.6 y), smokers (22.6% vs. 17.8%) who had preoperative weight loss (22.5% vs. 15.3%), ASA class ≥ 3 (80.8% vs. 77.5%), preoperative transfusion (1.5% vs. 0.84%), chemotherapy (22.8% vs. 17.5%), and radiation (14.5% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.05). The matched cohort included 880 patients in each group with completely balanced preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. In the matched cohort, patients with FT placement had higher overall morbidity (52.2% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.001), major morbidity (28.4% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.004), organ/space infection (14.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.026), re-operation (8.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.003), DGE (26.8% vs. 16.4%, p < 0.001), and longer mean hospital length of stay (12.9 vs. 11.2 days, p = 0.001) than those without FT. There was no difference in mortality (1.7% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.488) or readmission rate (20.2% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.099). In patients with DGE and POPF, FT placement was not associated with morbidity, mortality, length of stay, or readmission rate (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with FT placement during PD tend to have higher postoperative morbidity and delayed recovery.

Serial EUS-Guided FNA for the Surveillance of Pancreatic Cysts: A Study of Long-Term Performance of Tumor Markers.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The natural history of KRAS mutations in mucinous pancreatic cysts (MPCs) over time remains to be fully understood. The aim of this study was to examine the performance of DNA markers and assess changes of KRAS mutations over time. METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts with at least two separate molecular analysis results were included in the study. We assessed the baseline patient and cyst characteristics, and DNA fluid analysis. The presence of either a KRAS mutation, or a CEA > 192 ng/ml was used as the diagnostic standard for mucinous cysts when surgical pathology was not available. RESULTS: A total of 933 pancreatic cyst fluid samples were collected, including 117 with ≥ 2 FNAs. Examinations were performed over a median of 30 months (range 1-115 months). Forty-three (36%) had a mutant KRAS on the index analysis out of which 26 had a change in their KRAS status to the wild-type. Eighty-one (64%) had a wild-type KRAS on the index analysis out of which 18 had change in their KRAS status to mutant type. There was no significant difference in the index cyst characteristics, presence of symptoms, or main duct involvement based on KRAS status change. Increasing age was associated with a changing KRAS mutation status (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: KRAS mutations gain and loss in pancreatic cyst fluid appears to occur frequently during long-term surveillance of MPCs. Age appears to be the only predictor for KRAS change over time.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD). RESULTS: From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Reappraisal of a 2-Cm Cut-off Size for the Management of Cystic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Multicenter International Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize an international cohort of resected cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (cPanNENs) and identify preoperative predictors of aggressive behavior. BACKGROUND: The characteristics of cPanNENs are unknown and their clinical management remains unclear. An observational strategy for asymptomatic cPanNENs ≤2 cm has been proposed by recent guidelines, but evidence is scarce and limited to single-institutional series. METHODS: Resected cPanNENs (1995-2017) from 16 institutions worldwide were included. Solid lesions (>50% solid component), functional tumors, and MEN-1 patients were excluded. Aggressiveness was defined as lymph node (LN) involvement, G3 grading, distant metastases, and/or recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 263 resected cPanNENs were included, among which 177 (63.5%) were >2 cm preoperatively. A preoperative diagnosis of cPanNEN was established in 162 cases (61.6%) and was more frequent when patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound [EUS, odds ratio (OR) 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52-4.77] and somatostatin-receptor imaging (OR 3.681, 95% CI 1.809-7.490), and for those managed in specialized institutions (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.57-6.21). Forty-one cPanNENs (15.6%) were considered aggressive. In the whole cohort, LN involvement on imaging, age >65 years, preoperative size >2 cm, and pancreatic duct dilation were independently associated with aggressive behavior. In asymptomatic patients, older age and a preoperative size >2 cm remained independently associated with aggressiveness. Only 1 of 61 asymptomatic cPanNENs ≤2 cm displayed an aggressive behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of cPanNENs is increased by the use of EUS and somatostatin-receptor imaging and is higher in specialized institutions. Preoperative size >2 cm is independently associated with aggressive behavior. Consequently, a watch-and-wait policy for sporadic asymptomatic cPanNENs ≤2 cm seems justified and safe for most patients.

Outcomes in Endoscopic and Operative Transgastric Pancreatic Debridement.

OBJECTIVES: Select patients with anatomically favorable walled off pancreatic necrosis may be treated by endoscopic (Endo-TGD) or operative (OR-TGD) transgastric debridement (TGD). We compared our experience with these 2 approaches. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Select necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) patients are suitable for TGD which may be accomplished endoscopically or surgically. Limited experience exists contrasting these techniques exists. METHODS: Patients undergoing Endo-TGD and OR-TGD at a single, high-volume pancreatic center between 2008 and 2019 were identified from a prospective database. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of these 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Among 498 NP patients undergoing necrosis intervention, 160 (32%) had TGD: 59 Endo-TGD and 101 OR-TGD. The groups were statistically similar in age, comorbidity, pancreatitis etiology, necrosis anatomy, pancreatitis severity, and timing of TGD from pancreatitis insult. OR-TGD required 1.1 ±â€Š0.5 and Endo-TGD 3.0 ±â€Š2.0 debridements/patient. Fewer hospital readmissions and repeat necrosis interventions, and shorter total inpatient length of stay were observed in OR-TGD patients. New-onset organ failure [Endo-TGD (13%); OR-TGD (13%); P = 1.0] was similar between groups. Hospital length of stay after TGD was significantly longer in patients undergoing Endo-TGD (13.8 ±â€Š20.8 days) compared to OR-TGD (9.4 ±â€Š6.1 days; P = 0.047). Mortality was 7% in Endo-TGD and 1% in OR-TGD (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Operative and endoscopic transgastric debridement achieve necrosis resolution with different temporal and procedural profiles. Clear multidisciplinary communication is essential to determine appropriate approach to individual necrotizing pancreatitis patients.

ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis.

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention (<48 hours vs >48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of malignant hilar obstruction.

This clinical guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the management of patients with malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses primary drainage modality (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage [PTBD] vs endoscopic biliary drainage [EBD]), drainage strategy (unilateral vs bilateral), and stent selection (plastic stent [PS] vs self-expandable metal stent [SEMS]). Regarding drainage modality, in patients with MHO undergoing drainage before potential resection or transplantation, the panel suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with EBD. In patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative drainage, the panel suggests PTBD or EBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. Regarding drainage strategy, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a unilateral stent in the absence of liver atrophy. Finally, regarding type of stent, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placing SEMSs or PSs. However, in patients who have a short life expectancy and who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions, the panel suggests using SEMSs compared with PSs. If optimal drainage strategy has not been established, the panel suggests placing PSs. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

A novel biosynthetic scaffold mesh reinforcement affords the lowest hernia recurrence in the highest-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with higher postoperative infection risk undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) have limited options for mesh use. Biosynthetic mesh is intended to utilize the durability of synthetic mesh combined with the biocompatibility of biologic mesh. We sought to assess the outcomes of a novel biosynthetic scaffold mesh for VHR in higher risk patients over a 12-month postoperative period. METHODS: Two cohorts of 50 consecutive patients who underwent VHR with TELA Bio OviTex biosynthetic or synthetic mesh were retrospectively compared. Endpoints included surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission rate, and hernia recurrence following VHR at 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: OviTex mesh placement was associated with higher risk Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) distribution and more contaminated CDC wound class distribution compared to synthetic mesh placement (VHWG grade 3: 68% vs. 6%, p < 0.001; CDC class > I: 70% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Additionally, concomitant procedures were performed more often with OviTex mesh placement than synthetic mesh placement (70% vs 10%, p < 0.001). The OviTex mesh performed comparably to synthetic mesh in terms of incidences of SSO (36% vs 22%, p = 0.19), readmission rates (24% vs 14%, p = 0.31), and hernia recurrence (6% vs 12%, p = 0.74). On further evaluation, patients who developed SSO with OviTex mesh (n = 18) had a 17% hernia recurrence whereas those with synthetic mesh (n = 11) had an associated 55% hernia recurrence (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The OviTex biosynthetic mesh was used in higher risk patients and performed similarly to synthetic mesh in regards to rate of SSO, readmissions, and hernia recurrence. Furthermore, patients who developed SSO with Ovitex mesh were significantly less likely to have hernia recurrence than those with synthetic mesh. Overall, the data suggest that biosynthetic mesh is a more desirable option for definitive hernia repair in higher risk patients.

Is resident assistance equivalent to fellows during hepatectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Hepatectomy is a complex operative procedure frequently performed at academic institutions with trainee participation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of assistant's training level on outcomes following hepatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective, single-institution ACS-NSQIP database was performed for patients that underwent hepatectomy (2013-2016). Patients were divided by trainee assistant level: hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) fellow versus general surgery resident (PGY 4-5). Demographic, perioperative, and 30-day outcome variables were compared using Chi-Square/Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable regression. Cases involving a senior-level general surgery resident or HPB fellow as first assistant were included (n = 352). Those with a second attending, junior-level resident, or no documented assistant were excluded (n = 39). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatectomy with an HPB fellow as primary assistant had more frequent preoperative biliary stenting, longer operative time, and more concomitant procedures including biliary reconstruction, resulting in a higher rate of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (15% vs. 8%, P = 0.044). However, trainee level did not impact PHLF on multivariable analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.29-1.25], P = 0.173). Fellows assisted with proportionally more major hepatectomies (45% vs. 31%; P = 0.010) and resections for hepatobiliary cancers (31% vs. 19%, P = 0.014). On stratified analysis of major and minor hepatectomies, outcomes were similar between trainee groups. CONCLUSION: Fellows performed higher complexity cases with longer operative time. Despite these differences, outcomes were similar regardless of assistant training level. Resident and HPB fellow participation in operations requiring liver resection provide comparable quality of care.

Use of primary surgical drains in synchronous resection for colorectal liver metastases: a NSQIP analysis of current practice paradigm.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies examining the use of subhepatic drains after simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM). This study aimed to (1) describe the current practices regarding primary drain placement, (2) evaluate drain efficacy in mitigating postoperative complications, and (3) determine impact of drain maintenance duration on patient outcomes. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP targeted data from 2014 to 2017 were analyzed. Propensity score of surgical drain versus no drain cohorts was performed. Main study outcomes were mortality, major morbidity, organ/space surgical site infection (SSI), secondary drain/aspiration procedure, and any septic events. Additional univariate/multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify associations with drain placement and duration. Major hepatectomy was defined as formal right hepatectomy and any trisectionectomy. RESULTS: 584 combined liver and colorectal resection (CRR) cases were identified. Open partial hepatectomy with colectomy was the most common procedure (70%, n = 407). Nearly 40% of patients received surgical drains (n = 226). Major hepatectomy, lower serum albumin, and no intraoperative portal vein occlusion (Pringle maneuver) were significantly associated with drain placement (p < 0.05). In the matched cohort (n = 190 in each arm), patients with surgical drains experienced higher rates of major morbidity (30% vs 12%), organ/space SSI (16% vs 6%), postoperative drain/aspiration procedures (9% vs 3%), and sepsis/septic shock (12% vs 4%) (all p < 0.05). Patients with severely prolonged drain removal, defined as after postoperative day 13 (POD13), had higher risk of postoperative morbidity compared to those with earlier drain removal (p < 0.01). 30-day mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Primary surgical drains were placed in a substantial percentage of patients undergoing combined resection for sCRLM. This case-matched analysis suggested that surgical drains are associated with an increase in postoperative morbidity. Postoperative drain maintenance past 13 days is associated with worse outcomes compared to earlier removal.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome predicts failure of percutaneous therapy in necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive approaches, such as percutaneous drainage (PD), are increasingly utilized as initial treatment in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) requiring intervention. Predictors of success of PD as definitive treatment are lacking. Our aim was to assess the application, predictors of success, and natural history of PD in NP. We hypothesized that necrosis morphology patterns and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) may predict the ability of PD to provide definitive therapy. METHODS: 714 NP patients were treated from 2005 to 2018. Patients achieving disease resolution with PD alone (PD) were compared to those requiring an escalation in intervention (Step). Outcomes were compared between groups using independent samples t-test, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation, as appropriate. P < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. RESULTS: 115 patients were initially managed with PD (42 PD, 73 Step). No difference in necrosis morphology was seen between the two groups. The PD group underwent significantly more repeat percutaneous interventions (PD, 3.2; Step, 2.0; P = 0.0006) including additional drain placement and drain upsize/reposition procedures. Patients with DPDS were more likely to require an escalation in intervention (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.6; P = 0.003). The mean number of months to NP resolution was similar (PD, 5.7; Step, 5.8; P = 0.9). Mortality was similar (PD, 7%; Step 14%, P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Necrosis morphology in and of itself does not reliably predict successful definitive treatment by percutaneous drainage. However, patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome were less likely to have definitive resolution with PD alone.