The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. RESULTS: Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript: Training, Accreditation, Implementation and Safety Evaluation of Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization (PVE/HVE) to Accelerate Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Hypertrophy.

STUDY PURPOSE: The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. METHODS: The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. RESULTS: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Proposal of a Standardization.

Objective: To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). Background: Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized. Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases. Results: Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Technical advances in surgery for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal treatment concepts enhance options for surgery in locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This review provides an overview of technical advances to facilitate curative-intent resection in PDAC. METHODS: A review of the literature addressing current technical advances in surgery for PDAC was performed, and current state-of-the-art surgical techniques summarized. RESULTS: Artery-first and uncinate-first approaches, dissection of the anatomical triangle between the coeliac and superior mesenteric arteries and the portomesenteric vein, and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy were introduced to enhance the completeness of resection and reduce the risk of local recurrence. Elaborated techniques for resection and reconstruction of the mesenteric-portal vein axis and a venous bypass graft-first approach frequently allow resection of PDAC with venous involvement, even in patients with portal venous congestion and cavernous transformation. Arterial involvement does not preclude surgical resection per se, but may become surgically manageable with recent techniques of arterial divestment or arterial resection following neoadjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: Advanced techniques of surgical resection and vessel reconstruction provide a toolkit for curative-intent surgery in borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC. Effects of these surgical approaches on overall survival remain to be proven with high-level clinical evidence.

[Surgery of pancreatic cancer: techniques to avoid local recurrence]. / Chirurgie des Pankreaskarzinoms: Techniken zur Vermeidung des Lokalrezidivs.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the prognostically important systemic recurrence, a high rate of local recurrence is a relevant problem of pancreatic cancer surgery. Improvement of local control is a requirement for surgical resection as a prerequisite for a potentially curative treatment. OBJECTIVES: Summary of the current evidence on frequency, relevance, and risk factors of local recurrence. Presentation of strategies for reduction of local recurrence with a special focus on surgical resection techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis and appraisal of currently available scientific literature on the topic. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Local recurrences occur as the first manifestation of tumor recurrence in 20-50% of patients after resection of pancreatic cancer. The considerable variations of reported local recurrence rates depend on the quality of surgery, regimens of (neo)adjuvant therapy as well as the design of surveillance and duration of follow-up. An R1 status is an important risk factor for local recurrence highlighting the relevance of a local radical resection. The majority of local recurrences consist of perivascular and lymph node recurrences. Therefore, lymphadenectomy, radical dissection directly at the celiac and mesenteric vessels including resection of the periarterial nerve plexus and vascular resection are starting points for improving surgical resection techniques. The safety and efficacy of radical resection techniques in the context of multimodal treatment of pancreatic cancer have to be further evaluated in prospective studies.

[Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of pancreatic cancer]. / Neoadjuvante und adjuvante Therapie beim Pankreaskarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Resection is the only curative treatment option for pancreatic cancer patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy can improve disease-free survival and overall survival after resection. Furthermore, neoadjuvant treatment protocols are currently being investigated in a large number of studies. OBJECTIVE: Summary of the current evidence for adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Review of the current scientific literature and guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: After resection for pancreatic cancer patients should receive intensive chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine or gemcitabine/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy. Neoadjuvant treatment concepts are promising but have to be further evaluated in prospective studies.

Consensus on definition and severity grading of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation varies considerably in the literature. This is partly because a universally accepted definition has not been established. This study aimed to propose an acceptable definition and severity grading system for lymphatic complications based on their management strategy. METHODS: Relevant literature published in MEDLINE and Web of Science was searched systematically. A consensus for definition and a severity grading was then sought between 20 high-volume transplant centres. RESULTS: Lymphorrhoea/lymphocele was defined in 32 of 87 included studies. Sixty-three articles explained how lymphatic complications were managed, but none graded their severity. The proposed definition of lymphorrhoea was leakage of more than 50 ml fluid (not urine, blood or pus) per day from the drain, or the drain site after removal of the drain, for more than 1 week after kidney transplantation. The proposed definition of lymphocele was a fluid collection of any size near to the transplanted kidney, after urinoma, haematoma and abscess have been excluded. Grade A lymphatic complications have a minor and/or non-invasive impact on the clinical management of the patient; grade B complications require non-surgical intervention; and grade C complications require invasive surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: A clear definition and severity grading for lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation was agreed. The proposed definitions should allow better comparisons between studies.

ANTECEDENTES: La incidencia de complicaciones linfáticas tras el trasplante renal (post-kidney-transplantation lymphatic, PKTL) varía considerablemente en la literatura. Esto se debe en parte a que no se ha establecido una definición universalmente aceptada. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo proponer una definición aceptable para las complicaciones PKTL y un sistema de clasificación de la gravedad basado en la estrategia de tratamiento. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura relevante en MEDLINE y Web of Science. Se logró un consenso para la definición y la clasificación de gravedad de las PKTL entre veinte centros de trasplante de alto volumen. RESULTADOS: En 32 de los 87 estudios incluidos se definía la linforrea/linfocele. Sesenta y tres artículos describían como se trataban las PKTL, pero ninguno calificó la gravedad de las mismas. La definición propuesta para la linforrea fue la de un débito diario superior a 50 ml de líquido (no orina, sangre o pus) a través del drenaje o del orificio cutáneo tras su retirada, más allá del 7º día postoperatorio del trasplante renal. La definición propuesta para linfocele fue la de una colección de líquido de tamaño variable adyacente al riñón trasplantado, tras haber descartado un urinoma, hematoma o absceso. Las PKTL de grado A fueron aquellas con escaso impacto o que no requirieron tratamiento invasivo; las PKTL de grado B fueron aquellas que precisaron intervención no quirúrgica y las PKTL de grado C aquellas en que fue necesaria la reintervención quirúrgica. CONCLUSIÓN: Se propone una definición clara y una clasificación de gravedad basada en la estrategia de tratamiento de las PKTLs. La definición propuesta y el sistema de calificación en 3 grados son razonables, sencillos y fáciles de comprender, y servirán para estandarizar los resultados de las PKTL y facilitar las comparaciones entre los diferentes estudios.