Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: international multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) recommend a formal oncological resection including splenectomy when distal pancreatectomy is indicated. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy in patients with presumed IPMN. METHODS: An international, retrospective cohort study was undertaken in 14 high-volume centres from 7 countries including consecutive patients after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN (2005-2019). Patients were divided into spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). The primary outcome was lymph node metastasis (LNM). Secondary outcomes were overall survival, duration of operation, blood loss, and secondary splenectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 700 patients were included after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN; 123 underwent SPDP (17.6%) and 577 DPS (82.4%). The rate of malignancy was 29.6% (137 patients) and the overall rate of LNM 6.7% (47 patients). Patients with preoperative suspicion of malignancy had a LNM rate of 17.2% (23 of 134) versus 4.3% (23 of 539) among patients without suspected malignancy (P < 0.001). Overall, SPDP was associated with a shorter operating time (median 180 versus 226 min; P = 0.001), less blood loss (100 versus 336 ml; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (5 versus 8 days; P < 0.001). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between SPDP and DPS for IPMN after correction for prognostic factors (HR 0.50, 95% c.i. 0.22 to 1.18; P = 0.504). CONCLUSION: This international cohort study found LNM in 6.7% of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for IPMN. In patients without preoperative suspicion of malignancy, SPDP seemed oncologically safe and was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with DPS.

Systematic review on management of high-output enterostomy in children: An urgent call for evidence.

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: High-output stoma is one of the most common major morbidities in young children with an enterostomy that could lead to intestinal failure. Management of high-output enterostomy in children is mostly based on personal experience. This systematic review aims to clarify the evidence-based therapeutic approach of high-output enterostomy in children. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published until March 20, 2023, following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. The study population comprised children (i.e., age <18 years) with high-output enterostomy (i.e., jejuno-, ileo-, and/or colostomy), regardless of underlying aetiology. Interventions comprised any (non)pharmacological and/or surgical treatment. Interventions were compared with each other, placebos, and/or no interventions. Primary outcome was reduction of enterostomy output. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, mortality, quality of life, associated healthcare costs, and adverse events. RESULTS: The literature search identified 4278 original articles of which 366 were screened on full text, revealing that none of the articles met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: This first systematic review on management of high-output enterostomy in children revealed that any evidence on the primary and secondary outcomes is lacking. There is an urgent need for evidence on conservative treatment strategies including fluid restrictions, dietary advices, oral rehydration solution, chyme re-infusion, and pharmacological and surgical treatments of high-output enterostomy in children, aiming to reduce the risk for short- and long-term complications. Till more evidence is available, a systematic and multidisciplinary step-up approach is needed. Therefore, a therapeutic work-up is proposed that could guide the care.

Safety and performance of a synthetic sealant patch aimed to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy (SHIELDS) - Prospective international multicenter phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (CR-POPF) in distal pancreatectomy (DP) ranges up to 25%. None of the available sealants significantly reduce CR-POPF. A new biodegradable sealant patch was able to reduce POPF and to achieve bleeding control in a preclinical porcine DP model. The aim of this first-in-human study was to assess the safety and performance of the sealant patch. METHODS: In this multicenter, single-arm study, 40 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were prospectively enrolled from 8 centers. Following surgical resection, the transection plane was closed according to the standard of care and manually covered with the sealant patch. As primary endpoint the incidence of CR-POPF up to 30-days postoperatively was evaluated. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of complications and device usability. RESULTS: Among 40 patients after distal pancreatectomy, CR-POPF occurred in 7 (17.5%) up to postoperative day 30. No type C POPF was observed. There was no intraoperative bleeding observed after patch application. CONCLUSION: The results of this international phase II study demonstrate promising results of a new sealant patch regarding the rate of CR-POPF. Randomized studies are now needed to confirm the superiority of the current patch as compared to the best current practice.

Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively. BACKGROUND: POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet. METHODS: Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI ï»¿- 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI ï»¿1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI ï»¿1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI ï»¿1981.79-4799.00). CONCLUSIONS: RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS).

PURPOSE: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30-50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68-0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSION: The current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial.

Costs of complications following distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019). RESULTS: Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.

Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drain strategy after distal pancreatectomy: A multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: /Objectives Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Traditionally, surgical drains are placed routinely after DP, but some question its efficacy and postulate that the use of drains may convert a self-limiting postoperative collection into a POPF. This study aimed to compare outcomes between three institutions with varying drainage strategies. METHODS: The study is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of intraoperative prophylactic drain placement during DP (2010-2019). The primary outcome is major morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to obtain comparable groups. RESULTS: Overall, 963 patients after DP were included. One center did not place a surgical drain routinely, but decided to place a drain when unsatisfactory pancreatic closure occurred. Prophylactic abdominal drains were placed in 805 patients (84%) of which 74 could be matched to 74 patients without a drain. The rate of major morbidity (8% vs 19%, p = 0.054) and radiological interventions (5% vs 12%, p = 0.147) were non-significantly lower in the no-drain group as compared to the prophylactic drain group, respectively. The rates of POPF (4% vs 16%, p = 0.014) were lower in the no-drain group. CONCLUSION: In this international retrospective multicenter study, a selective no-drain strategy after DP was not associated with higher rates major morbidity or radiological interventions as compared to routine prophylactic abdominal drainage. Although the rate of POPF was lower in the no-drain group, randomized trials should confirm the safety and outcome of a no-drain strategy after DP.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and severity of acute appendicitis: a comparison between 2019 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease in the number of patients presenting with acute appendicitis was observed. It is unclear whether this caused a shift towards more complicated cases of acute appendicitis. We compared a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic with a 2019 control cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive adult patients in 21 hospitals presenting with acute appendicitis in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2020) and a control cohort (March 15 - April 30, 2019). Primary outcome was the proportion of complicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included prehospital delay, appendicitis severity, and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic cohort comprised 607 patients vs. 642 patients in the control cohort. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis was seen (46.9% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.003). More patients had symptoms exceeding 24 h (61.1% vs. 56.2%, respectively, p = 0.048). After correction for prehospital delay, presentation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was still associated with a higher rate of complicated appendicitis. Patients presenting > 24 h after onset of symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic were older (median 45 vs. 37 years; p = 0.001) and had more postoperative complications (15.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of acute appendicitis was slightly lower during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, more patients presented with a delay and with complicated appendicitis than in a corresponding period in 2019. Spontaneous resolution of mild appendicitis may have contributed to the increased proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis. Late presenting patients were older and experienced more postoperative complications compared to the control cohort.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Oncological Outcome After Laparoscopic 'No-touch' RAMPS Versus 'Touch' Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The validity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still unclear. However, a meticulous surgical dissection through a "no-touch" technique might allow a radical oncological resection with minimal risk of tumor dissemination and seeding. This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic "no touch" technique versus the "touch" technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 45 patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC in two centers. Factors associated with overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were identified. RESULTS: The OS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 95% vs. 78% (1-year OS); 50% vs. 50% (3-year OS), respectively (p=0.60). The DFS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 72 % vs. 57% (1-year DFS); 32% vs. 28% (3-year DFS), respectively (p=0.11). The TTR rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 77% vs. 61% (1-year TTR); 54% vs. 30% (3-year TTR); 46% vs. 11% (5-year TTR); respectively (p=0.02) In multivariate analysis the only factors were Touch technique [odds ratio (OR)=2.62, p=0.02] and lymphovascular emboli (OR=4.8; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: We advise the 'no-touch' technique in patients with resectable PDAC in the pancreatic body and tail. Although this study does not provide definitive proof of superiority, no apparent downsides are present for the 'no-touch' technique in this setting although there could be oncological benefits.

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher. METHODS: An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651). CONCLUSION: In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Guidelines and recommendations for MRI in breast cancer follow-up: A review.

OBJECTIVE: Present article will perform a review regarding the current recommendations of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in routine follow-up after successfully treated breast cancer by surgery, radiation and/or systemic therapy. METHODS: For this review, a literature review search was done with the MeSH-terms: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, breast neoplasm, post-operative period and follow-up, according to PRISMA. The literature published between 2006 and 2016 in MedBase, PubMed and Embase was consulted. RESULTS: The 10 articles and 8 guidelines were analysed for their recommendations regarding MRI use in routine follow-up for breast cancer. One article concluded that MRI could influence further policy, all others did not find superiority of MRI over mammography or were inconclusive. One guideline recommended annual MRI for patients with a positive personal history (PPH) for breast cancer without further risk factors, one guideline offered no MRI to these patients and all other guidelines were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence regarding superiority of MRI versus mammography in routine follow-up for patients with a PPH of breast cancer. MRI does not improve survival in all patients and should therefore not be offered to patients in follow-up without increased risk for recurrences.