Complications in Distal Pancreatectomy versus Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Disease Risk Score Analysis Utilizing National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Data.

INTRODUCTION: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was developed to improve R0 resections and lymph node harvests versus distal pancreatectomy (DP) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC); relative complication rates are understudied. METHODS: Patients undergoing distal pancreas resections from 2006 to 2020 were identified from our institutional NSQIP database, grouped by resection method, and evaluated for the following outcomes: postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (crPOPF), incisional surgical site infection (iSSI), organ space SSI (osSSI), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (CD ≥ 3) complications using logistic regression. Patients were matched 1:1 based on disease risk score. RESULTS: Two-hundred-thirty-six and 117 patients underwent DP and RAMPS, respectively. POPF, crPOPF, CD ≥ 3 complications, iSSI, and osSSIs occurred in 105 (30%), 43 (12%), 74 (21%), 34 (10%) and 52 (15%) patients, respectively. Disease risk score matching yielded 89 similar patients per group. On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing RAMPS were not significantly more likely to experience POPF (OR 0.69, P = 0.26), crPOPF (OR 0.41, P = 0.72), CD ≥ 3 complication (OR 0.78, P = 0.44), iSSI (OR 0.58, P = 0.27), or osSSI (OR 0.93, P = 0.86). Of patients with PDAC (n = 108) mean nodal harvest were 14.8 (SD 11.30) and 19.4 (SD 7.19) nodes for patients undergoing DP and RAMPS, respectively (P = 0.01). Six patients (20%) undergoing DP had positive margins versus 12 (15%) undergoing RAMPS (P = 0.56). At a median follow-up of 17 months, there was no difference in locoregional recurrence-free survival (P = 0.32) or overall survival (P = 0.92) on Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSION: RAMPS does not result in increased complications compared to DP and routine use is encouraged in pancreatic malignancies.

The power of suction: Theory and practice in closed suction vs gravity drains and postoperative pancreatic fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a feared complication in pancreatic resection. Gravity drainage (GD) is hypothesized to reduce POPF versus closed-suction drainage (CSD). We sought to evaluate this theory. METHODS: Six-hundred-twenty-nine patients undergoing pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2020 were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression for the outcomes of POPF and clinically-relevant POPF (crPOPF). RESULTS: Three-hundred-ninety-seven patients (63.1%) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and 232 (36.9%) underwent distal pancreatectomy. Suction drains were placed in 588 patients (93.5%) whereas 41 (6.5%) had GDs. One-hundred-twenty-five (27.6%) experienced a POPF; 49 (10%) crPOPFs. On multivariable analysis, suction drainage was not associated with increased risk of POPF (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30-1.93, P = 0.57) or crPOPF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.30-3.26, P = 0.98). CONCLUSION: Suction drainage does not promote POPF when compared to GDs. Drain type should be determined by surgeon preference, while taking into account nursing and patient-specific considerations especially when patients are discharged with drains.

Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula in the Era of pasireotide.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) remain common; POPFs frequently require intervention, termed clinically-relevant POPFs (crPOPFs). Pasireotide is increasingly used to prevent POPF, however, risk factors for POPF in this population remain unexplored. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatectomy with perioperative pasireotide from 2013 to 2020 were identified from our institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. Logistic regression was utilized to identify risk factors associated with POPF. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were identified; 26 (26%) underwent distal pancreatectomy with the remainder undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thirty (30%) experienced POPF, with 21 crPOPFs. Only current smoking was significantly associated with crPOPF (OR 3.79, p = 0.04). Of 30 patients with a firm gland, none experienced crPOPF. Twenty-five received a partial course of pasireotide; 7/25 (28%) crPOPFs occurred versus 14/75 (19%) in patients receiving a full course (p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Shortened courses of pasireotide do not increase crPOPF risk; selective discontinuation may be suitable in low-risk patients. Smoking cessation should be encouraged.

Intensive care unit observation after pancreatectomy: Treating the patient or the surgeon?

BACKGROUND: Routine intensive care unit admission (ICUA) is commonplace following pancreatectomy, particularly pancreaticoduodenectomy. The value of this practice in avoiding failure-to-rescue is poorly studied. METHODS: We queried our institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database for patients undergoing pancreatectomy from 2013 to 2020. Postoperative dispositions, ICU courses, and hospital cost data in United States Dollars (USD) were captured. Data were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Six-hundred-thirty-seven patients were identified; 404 (63%) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Postoperatively, 398 (99%) pancreaticoduodenectomies and 110 (47%) distal pancreatectomies had ICUA; two-thirds (n = 318, 63%) did not require immediate postoperative ICU-level interventions at ICUA. Of these, 17 (5.3%) subsequently required ICU-level interventions during initial ICUA, most commonly antiarrhythmic infusion (n = 12). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality in patients requiring immediate ICU-level interventions was 5% (n = 10) and 8% (n = 16) versus 0.3% (n = 1) and 1.2% (n = 4) in those without, respectively. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer with initial ICU-level interventions (median 11 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001), as were total ICU costs (mean 8683 vs. 14611 USD, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: At high-volume pancreas centers, patients without immediate postoperative ICU-level interventions are very low risk for failure-to-rescue. Ward admission with a low threshold for care escalation presents a significant opportunity for cost-savings and un-burdening ICUs.