Is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery the appropriate treatment for esophagogastric signet ring cell carcinomas? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCTX) on survival and tumor response in patients with esophagogastric signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) is still controversial. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature search in Medline, CENTRAL, and Web of Science including prospective and retrospective two-arm non-randomized and randomized controlled studies (RCTs). Data was extracted on overall survival (OS) and tumor regression in resected esophagogastric SRCC patients with or without nCTX. Survival data was analyzed using published hazard ratios (HR) if available or determined it from other survival data or survival curves. OS and histopathological response rates by type of tumor (SRCC vs. non-SRCC) were also investigated. Results: Out of 559 studies, ten (1 RCT, 9 non-RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022298743) investigating 3,653 patients in total. The four studies investigating survival in SRCC patients treated with nCTX + surgery vs. surgery alone showed no survival benefit for neither intervention, but heterogeneity was considerable (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-1.67; p = 0.98; I2 = 89%). In patients treated by nCTX + surgery SRCC patients showed worse survival (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.21-1.74; p < 0.01) and lower rate of major histopathological response than non-SRCC patients (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.78-3.44; p < 0.01). Conclusion: The current meta-analysis could not demonstrate beneficial effects of nCTX for SRCC patients. Histopathological response to and survival benefits of non-taxane-based nCTX seem to be lower in comparison to non-SRC esophagogastric cancer. However, certainty of evidence is low due to the scarcity of high-quality trials. Further research is necessary to determine optimal treatment for SRCC patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022298743).

Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) compared with conventional pancreatic transection in distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for the randomised controlled CUSA-1 pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to 30% of the patients suffer from clinically relevant POPF. Therefore, the development of new innovative methods and procedures is still a cornerstone of current surgical research.The cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) device is a well-known ultrasound-based parenchyma transection method, often used in liver and neurosurgery which has not yet been thoroughly investigated in pancreatic surgery, but the first results seem very promising. METHODS: The CUSA-1 trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel study groups. This single-centre trial is assessor and patient blinded. A total of 60 patients with an indication for open distal pancreatectomy will be intraoperatively randomised after informed consent. The patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group with conventional pancreas transection (scalpel or stapler) or the experimental group, with transection using the CUSA device. The primary safety endpoint of this trial will be postoperative complications ≥grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint to investigate the effect will be the rate of POPF within 30 days postoperatively according to the ISGPS definition. Further perioperative outcomes, including postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, length of hospital stay and mortality will be analysed as secondary endpoints. DISCUSSION: Based on the available literature, CUSA may have a beneficial effect on POPF occurrence after distal pancreatectomy. The rationale of the CUSA-1 pilot trial is to investigate the safety and feasibility of the CUSA device in elective open distal pancreatectomy compared with conventional dissection methods and gather the first data on the effect on POPF occurrence. This data will lay the groundwork for a future confirmatory multicentre randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CUSA-1 trial protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (No. S-098/2022). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided in lay language to study participants and their relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00027474.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial.

Background: Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods: This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings: Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation: In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

Tranexamic Acid Administration During Liver Transplantation Is Not Associated With Lower Blood Loss or With Reduced Utilization of Red Blood Cell Transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend antifibrinolytic treatment for liver transplantation to reduce blood loss and transfusion utilization. However, the clinical relevance of fibrinolysis during liver transplantation is questionable, a benefit of tranexamic acid (TXA) in this context is not supported by sufficient evidence, and adverse effects are also conceivable. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that use of TXA is associated with reduced blood loss. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2004 and 2017 at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to determine the association between TXA administration and the primary end point intraoperative blood loss and the secondary end point intra- and postoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. For further secondary outcome analyses, the time to the first occurrence of a composite end point of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, and thrombosis of the inferior vena cava were analyzed using a univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Data from 779 transplantations were included in the final analysis. The median intraoperative blood loss was 3000 mL (1600-5500 mL). Intraoperative TXA administration occurred in 262 patients (33.6%) with an average dose of 1.4 ± 0.7 g and was not associated with intraoperative blood loss (regression coefficient B, -0.020 [-0.051 to 0.012], P = .226) or any of the secondary end points (intraoperative RBC transfusion; regression coefficient B, 0.023 [-0.006 to 0.053], P = .116), postoperative RBC transfusion (regression coefficient B, 0.007 [-0.032 to 0.046], P = .717), and occurrence of thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.110 [0.903-1.365], P = .321). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the use of TXA during liver transplantation. Physicians should exercise caution and consider individual factors when deciding whether or not to administer TXA.

The PAncreatic Surgery Composite Endpoint PACE - Development and Validation of a Clinically Relevant Endpoint Requiring Lower Sample Sizes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a composite endpoint in pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Single endpoints in prospective and randomized studies have become impractical due to their low frequency and the marginal benefit of new interventions. METHODS: Data from prospective studies were used to develop (n=1273) and validate (n=544) a composite endpoint based on postoperative pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage as well as reoperation and reinterventions. All patients had pancreatectomies of different extents. The association of the developed PAncreatic surgery Composite Endpoint (PACE) with prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS) >75th percentile and mortality was assessed. A single-institution database was used for external validation (n = 2666). Sample size calculations were made for single outcomes and the composite endpoint. RESULTS: In the internal validation cohort, the PACE demonstrated an AUC of 78.0%, a sensitivity of 90.4% and a specificity of 67.6% in predicting a prolonged LOS. In the external cohort, the AUC was 76.9%, the sensitivity 73.8% and the specificity 80.1%. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly different for patients with a positive versus a negative PACE both in the development and internal validation cohort (5.1% vs 0.9%; P< 0.001), as well as in the external validation cohort (8.5% vs 1.2%, P< 0.001). The PACE enabled sample size reductions of up to 80.5% compared to single outcomes. CONCLUSION: The PACE performed well in predicting prolonged hospital stays and can be used as a standardized and clinically relevant endpoint for future prospective trials enabling lower sample sizes and therefore improved feasibility compared to single outcome parameters.

Tailoring the Use of Central Pancreatectomy Through Prediction Models for Major Morbidity and Postoperative Diabetes: International Retrospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for major morbidity and endocrine dysfunction after CP which could help in tailoring the use of this procedure. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing alternative to distal pancreatectomy for symptomatic benign and pre-malignant tumors in body and neck of the pancreas CP lowers the risk of new-onset diabetes and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency compared to distal pancreatectomy but it is thought to increase the risk of short-term complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: International multicenter retrospective cohort study including patients from 51 centers in 19 countries (2010-2021). Primary endpoint was major morbidity. Secondary endpoints included POPF grade B/C, endocrine dysfunction, and the use of pancreatic enzymes. Two risk model were designed for major morbidity and endocrine dysfunction utilizing multivariable logistic regression and internal and external validation. RESULTS: 838 patients after CP were included (301 (36%) minimally invasive) and major morbidity occurred in 248 (30%) patients, POPF B/C in 365 (44%), and 30-day mortality in 4 (1%). Endocrine dysfunction in 91 patients (11%) and use of pancreatic enzymes in 108 (12%). The risk model for major morbidity included male sex, age, BMI, and ASA score≥3. The model performed acceptable with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.72(CI:0.68-0.76). The risk model for endocrine dysfunction included higher BMI and male sex and performed well (AUC:0.83 (CI:0.77-0.89)). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed risk models help in tailoring the use of CP in patients with symptomatic benign and premalignant lesions in the body and neck of the pancreas and are readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

A Systematic Review and Illustrative Case Presentation of Low-Grade Myofibroblastic Sarcoma (LGMS) of the Extremities.

INTRODUCTION: Low-grade myofibroblastic sarcoma (LGMS) is a rare tumor entity which occurs in the subcutaneous and deep soft tissues; it is less common in the bone with a predilection for the extremities and the head and neck region. As confirming the diagnosis is difficult and treatment strategies are not standardized, we aimed to identify patient and tumor characteristics, and to summarize treatment strategies and their clinical outcomes to guide surgeons. METHODS: Included were full articles reporting patients with histology of LGMS in the extremities, excluding tumors of the trunk. All patients underwent surgery but with different extend, from marginal to wide resection. Included studies should inform about local recurrence, metastasis, or evidence of disease, depending on the surgical treatment. We conducted a structured search using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify studies on low-grade myofibroblastic sarcoma of the extremities. Study designs like randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, prospective trials, retrospective studies, and case reports were included. Prospective studies and comparative studies were not available at all. Therefore, meta-analysis was not possible and statistical analysis was purely descriptive. RESULTS: Of the 789 studies identified from our initial search, 17 studies including 59 cases reported LGMS of the extremities with the surgical treatment and clinical outcome and were therefore analyzed. In addition, we present the rare case and surgical management of a 28-year-old male patient with residual LGMS of the thumb after an initial incomplete resection. The current literature suggests that a wide excision with R0 margins should be considered the standard treatment for LGMS. In cases where surgery leads to significant functional impairment, individual options like free tissue transfer from a donor site have to be considered. Therefore, we also present an illustrative case. For all selected case series and case reports, a high risk of confounding, selection bias, information bias, and reporting bias must be anticipated. Nevertheless, this systematic review provides a comprehensive overview on surgical treatment and clinical outcomes in LGMS surgery of the extremities.

Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583].

BACKGROUND: High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS/DESIGN: CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.32). CONCLUSION: This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.

Active learning for extracting surgomic features in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a prospective annotation study.

BACKGROUND: With Surgomics, we aim for personalized prediction of the patient's surgical outcome using machine-learning (ML) on multimodal intraoperative data to extract surgomic features as surgical process characteristics. As high-quality annotations by medical experts are crucial, but still a bottleneck, we prospectively investigate active learning (AL) to reduce annotation effort and present automatic recognition of surgomic features. METHODS: To establish a process for development of surgomic features, ten video-based features related to bleeding, as highly relevant intraoperative complication, were chosen. They comprise the amount of blood and smoke in the surgical field, six instruments, and two anatomic structures. Annotation of selected frames from robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies was performed by at least three independent medical experts. To test whether AL reduces annotation effort, we performed a prospective annotation study comparing AL with equidistant sampling (EQS) for frame selection. Multiple Bayesian ResNet18 architectures were trained on a multicentric dataset, consisting of 22 videos from two centers. RESULTS: In total, 14,004 frames were tag annotated. A mean F1-score of 0.75 ± 0.16 was achieved for all features. The highest F1-score was achieved for the instruments (mean 0.80 ± 0.17). This result is also reflected in the inter-rater-agreement (1-rater-kappa > 0.82). Compared to EQS, AL showed better recognition results for the instruments with a significant difference in the McNemar test comparing correctness of predictions. Moreover, in contrast to EQS, AL selected more frames of the four less common instruments (1512 vs. 607 frames) and achieved higher F1-scores for common instruments while requiring less training frames. CONCLUSION: We presented ten surgomic features relevant for bleeding events in esophageal surgery automatically extracted from surgical video using ML. AL showed the potential to reduce annotation effort while keeping ML performance high for selected features. The source code and the trained models are published open source.

Association of perioperative use of statins, metformin, and aspirin with recurrence after curative liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins, metformin, and aspirin have been reported to reduce the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the effect of their perioperative use on survival outcomes of HCC patients following curative liver resection still remains unclear. METHOD: Three hundred and fifty three patients with a first diagnosis of HCC who underwent curative liver resection were included. Propensity score matching analysis with a users: nonusers ratio of 1:2 were performed for each of the medications (statins, metformin, and aspirin). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were evaluated and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sixty two patients received statins, 48 patients used metformin, and 53 patients received aspirin for ≥90 days before surgery. None of the medications improved OS. RFS of statin users was significantly longer than that of nonusers (p = 0.021) in the matched cohort. Users of hydrophilic statins, but not lipophilic ones had a significantly longer RFS than nonusers. Multivariable analysis showed that statin use significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.97, p = 0.044). No difference was seen in RFS between metformin users and nonusers. Among patients with diabetes, RFS was nonsignificantly longer in metformin users than in non-metformin users (84.1% vs. 60.85%, p = 0.069) in the matched cohort. No difference in postoperative RFS was seen between aspirin users and nonusers. CONCLUSION: Preoperative use of statins in patients with HCC can increase RFS after curative liver resection, but metformin and aspirin were not associated with improved survival. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of the present study.

Systematic Review on Abdominal Penetrating Atherosclerotic Aortic Ulcers: Outcomes of Endovascular Repair.

PURPOSE: To systematically review existing evidence on outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal atherosclerotic penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cochrane Central Registry of Registered Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol (PRISMA-P 2020). The protocol was registered in the international registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022313404). Studies reporting on technical and clinical outcomes of endovascular PAU repair in 3 or more patients were included. Random effects modeling was used to estimate pooled technical success, survival, reinterventions, and type 1 and type 3 endoleaks. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Pooled results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. RESULTS: Sixteen studies including 165 patients with a mean/median age ranging from 64 to 78 years receiving endovascular therapy for PAU between 1997 and 2020 were identified. Pooled technical success was 99.0% (CI: 96.0%-100%). In all, 30-day mortality was 1.0% (CI: 0%-6.0%) with an in-hospital mortality of 1.0% (CI: 0.0%-13.0%). There were no reinterventions, type 1, or type 3 endoleaks at 30 days. Median/mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 33 months. Overall, there were 16 deaths (9.7%), 5 reinterventions (3.3%), 3 type 1 (1.8%), and 1 type 3 endoleak (0.6%) during follow-up. The quality of studies was rated low according to the Modified Coleman score at 43.4 (+/- 8.5) of 85 points. CONCLUSION: There is low-level evidence on outcomes of endovascular PAU repair. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. Recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAU should be made cautiously. CLINICAL IMPACT: This systematic review demonstrated that evidence on outcomes of endovascular abdominal PAU repair is limited. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. In the context of a benign prognosis of asymptomatic PAU and lacking standardization in current reporting, recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAUs should be made cautiously.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Widespread implementation of the minimally invasive technique in pancreatic surgery has proven to be challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatic surgery with open pancreatic surgery using data obtained from RCTs. METHODS: A literature search was done using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Web of Science; all available RCTs comparing minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and open pancreatic surgery in adults requiring elective distal pancreatectomy or partial pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Outcomes were mortality rate, general and pancreatic surgery specific morbidity rate, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 984 patients were included; 99.0 per cent (486) of minimally invasive procedures were performed laparoscopically and 1.0 per cent (five) robotically. In minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, length of hospital stay (-1.3 days, -2 to -0.5, P = 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (-137 ml, -182 to -92, P < 0.001) were reduced. In the subgroup analysis, reduction in length of hospital stay was only present for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (-2 days, -2.3 to -1.7, P < 0.001). A minimally invasive approach showed reductions in surgical site infections (OR 0.4, 0.1 to 0.96, P = 0.040) and intraoperative blood loss (-131 ml, -173 to -89, P < 0.001) with a 75 min longer duration of surgery (42 to 108 min, P < 0.001) only in partial pancreatoduodenectomy. No significant differences were found with regards to mortality rate and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis presents level 1 evidence of reduced length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery compared with open pancreatic surgery. Morbidity rate and mortality rate were comparable, but longer duration of surgery in minimally invasive partial pancreatoduodenectomy hints that this technique in partial pancreatoduodenectomy is technically more challenging than in distal pancreatectomy.

Perioperative Drug Treatment in Pancreatic Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic resections for malignant or benign diseases are associated with major morbidity and changes in physiology. To reduce perioperative complications and enhance recovery, many types of perioperative medical management have been introduced. The aim of this study was to provide an evidence-based overview on the best perioperative drug treatment. METHODS: The electronic bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating perioperative drug treatments in pancreatic surgery. The investigated drugs were somatostatin analogues, steroids, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), prokinetic therapy, antidiabetic drugs, and proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Targeted outcomes in each drug category were meta-analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 49 RCT were included. The analysis of somatostatin analogues showed a significantly lower incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in the somatostatin group compared to the control group (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74). The comparison of glucocorticoids versus placebo showed significantly less POPF in the glucocorticoid group (OR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.77). There was no significant difference in DGE when erythromycin was compared to placebo (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.30). The other investigated drug regimens could only be analyzed qualitatively. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview on perioperative drug treatment in pancreatic surgery. Some often-prescribed perioperative drug treatments lack high quality evidence and further research is needed.

Middle Segment-Preserving Pancreatectomy to Avoid Pancreatic Insufficiency: Individual Patient Data Analysis of All Published Cases from 2003-2021.

Middle segment-preserving pancreatectomy (MPP) can treat multilocular diseases in the pancreatic head and tail while avoiding impairments caused by total pancreatectomy (TP). We conducted a systematic literature review of MPP cases and collected individual patient data (IPD). MPP patients (N = 29) were analyzed and compared to a group of TP patients (N = 14) in terms of clinical baseline characteristics, intraoperative course, and postoperative outcomes. We also conducted a limited survival analysis following MPP. Pancreatic functionality was better preserved following MPP than TP, as new-onset diabetes and exocrine insufficiency each occurred in 29% of MPP patients compared to near-ubiquitous prevalence among TP patients. Nevertheless, POPF Grade B occurred in 54% of MPP patients, a complication avoidable with TP. Longer pancreatic remnants were a prognostic indicator for shorter and less eventful hospital stays with fewer complications, whereas complications of endocrine functionality were associated with older patients. Long-term survival prospects after MPP appeared strong (median up to 110 months), but survival was lower in cases with recurring malignancies and metastases (median < 40 months). This study demonstrates MPP is a feasible treatment alternative to TP for selected cases because it can avoid pancreoprivic impairments, but at the risk of perioperative morbidity.

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. METHODS: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214. Registered on 4th July 2022.

Sex Differences in the Systemic and Local Immune Response of Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence suggests that sex plays a critical role in various aspects of cancer such as immune responses. However, a male bias exists in human and non-human studies including immunotherapy trials. The role of sex on immune responses in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is unclear. METHODS: Here, tumor tissues (tumor and stroma separately) and corresponding blood samples from patients with PDA (n = 52) were systematically analyzed by immunohistochemistry and multiplex cytokine measurements and compared by sex. RESULTS: Females showed a stronger systemic immune response with higher levels of CXCL9, IL1B, IL6, IL10 and IL13. Additionally, more peripheral white blood cells were detected in females. In the microenvironment, males showed higher tumoral levels of CXCL12. No differences were detected in the stroma. Females showed a tendency towards an anti-tumoral immune cell profile. CXCL12 blockade indicated a differential microenvironmental effect by sex in an independent immunotherapy trial cohort of patients with PDA (one female, five males). The overall survival did not differ by sex in our cohort. CONCLUSION: Systemic and local immune responses differ between sexes in PDA. Accordingly, sex-dependent differences need to be considered in human studies and for specific immunological interventions before clinical translation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II-III) and gastric cancer. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB-III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B12 levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37-78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.

Central pancreatectomy prevents postoperative diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) can be performed as an alternative surgical approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) in the treatment of benign or low-grade malignant lesions located in the neck and body of the pancreas, aiming to reduce loss of parenchyma and therefore organ failure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcome of CP in comparison to DP. METHODS: Patients who received CP in a large tertiary care pancreatic surgery center between 2001 and 2020 were identified from a prospectively maintained database and compared via propensity score matching with patients receiving DP during the same time period. Perioperative rate of complications and long-term outcome of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients undergoing open CP were compared to 107 patients with open DP. No significant difference in rates or severity of most surgical complications could be found including postoperative pancreatic fistula, intraabdominal fluid collection, delayed gastric emptying and wound infection. However, patients receiving CP had a significantly higher risk of grade C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) (CP: 10 patients, 9.3% versus DP: 1 patient, 0.9%; p = .0019). Perioperative mortality was comparable. Long-term follow-up of 60 matched pairs revealed significantly less patients with new-onset diabetes after CP (eight patients, 13.3%) compared to DP (22 patients, 36.7%, p = .0056). CONCLUSION: CP offers an improved endocrine long-term outcome at the expense of a higher risk of PPH without increased perioperative mortality. As evidence on this parenchyma sparing surgical technique is sparse, more prospective data are needed.