Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Patient Social Vulnerability and Hospital Community Racial/Ethnic Integration: Do All Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy Receive the Same Care Across Hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to characterize the role of patient social vulnerability relative to hospital racial/ethnic integration on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. BACKGROUND: The interplay between patient- and community-level factors on outcomes after complex surgery has not been well-examined. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pancreatectomy between 2013 and 2017 were identified utilizing 100% Medicare inpatient files. P-SVI was determined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, whereas H-REI was estimated using Shannon Diversity Index. Impact of P-SVI and H-REI on "TO" [ie, no surgical complication/extended length-of-stay (LOS)/90-day mortality/90-day readmission] was assessed. RESULTS: Among 24,500 beneficiaries who underwent pancreatectomy, 12,890 (52.6%) were male and median age was 72 years (Interquartile range: 68-77); 10,619 (43.3%) patients achieved a TO. The most common adverse postoperative outcome was 90-day readmission (n = 8,066, 32.9%), whereas the least common was 90-day mortality (n = 2282, 9.3%). Complications and extended LOS occurred in 30.4% (n = 7450) and 23.3% (n = 5699) of the cohort, respectively. Patients from an above average SVI county who underwent surgery at a below average REI hospital had 18% lower odds [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.95] of achieving a TO compared with patients from a below average SVI county who underwent surgery at a hospital with above average REI. Of note, patients from the highest SVI areas who underwent pancreatectomy at hospitals with the lowest REI had 30% lower odds (95% CI: 0.54-0.91) of achieving a TO compared with patients from very low SVI areas who underwent surgery at a hospital with high REI. Further comparisons of these 2 patient groups indicated 76% increased odds of 90-day mortality (95% CI: 1.10-2.82) and 50% increased odds of an extended LOS (95% CI: 1.07-2.11). CONCLUSION: Patients with high social vulnerability who underwent pancreatectomy in hospitals located in communities with low racial/ethnic integration had the lowest chance to achieve an "optimal" TO. A focus on both patient- and community-level factors is needed to ensure optimal and equitable patient outcomes.

Assessment of Magnet status and Textbook Outcomes among medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepato-pancreatic surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital Magnet status recognition and postoperative outcomes following complex cancer surgery remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize Textbook Outcome (TO) rates among patients undergoing (HP) surgery for cancer in Magnet versus non-Magnet centers. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP surgery between 2015 and 2017 were identified. The association of postoperative TO (no complications/extended length-of-stay/90-day mortality/90-day readmission) with Magnet designation was examined after adjusting for competing risk factors. RESULTS: Among 10,997 patients, 21.3% (n = 2337) patients underwent surgery at Magnet hospitals (non-Magnet centers: 78.7%, n = 8660). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing HP surgery had comparable odds of achieving a TO at Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals (hepatectomy: odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.17; pancreatectomy-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06). Patients treated at hospitals with a high nurse-to-bed ratio had higher odds of achieving a TO irrespective of whether they received surgery at Magnet (high vs. low nurse-to-bed ratio; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.89) or non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Similarly, hospital HP volume was strongly associated with higher odds of TO following HP surgery in both Magnet (Leapfrog compliant vs. noncompliant; OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44) and non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11-1.26). CONCLUSION: Hospital Magnet designation was not an independent factor of superior outcomes after HP surgery. Rather, hospital-level factors such as nurse-to-bed ratio and HP procedural volume drove outcomes.

Don't mess with the pancreas! A multicenter analysis of the management of low-grade pancreatic injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, level IV.

A tug-of-war in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms management: Comparison between 2017 International and 2018 European guidelines.

BACKGROUND: 2017 International and 2018 European guidelines are the most recent guidelines for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms management. AIM: to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these guidelines in identifying malignant IPMN. METHODS: data from resected patients with IPMN were collected in two referral centers. Features of risk associated to cancerous degeneration described in International and European guidelines were retrospectively applied. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value in detecting malignant disease were calculated. RESULTS: the study includes 627 resected patients. European guidelines suggest resection in any patient with at least one feature of moderate-risk. International guidelines suggest that patients with moderate-risk features undergo endoscopic ultrasound before surgery. European guidelines had a higher sensitivity (99.2% vs. 83%) but a lower positive predictive value (59.5% vs. 65.8%) and Specificity (2% vs. 37.5%). European guidelines detected almost all malignancies, but 40% of resected patients had low-grade dysplasia. 297 patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound before surgery. 31/116 (26.7%) tumors radiologically classified as "worrisome features" were reclassified as "high-risk stigmata" by endoscopic ultrasound and 24/31 were malignant IPMN. CONCLUSIONS: European and International guidelines have a relatively low diagnostic accuracy, being European guidelines more aggressive. Endoscopic ultrasound can improve guidelines accuracy in patients with moderate-risk features.

A novel risk factor panel predicts early recurrence in resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are indolent pancreatic tumors derived from neuroendocrine cells in pancreatic islets. To date, reliable predictors for identifying patients at high risk for recurrence after curative cancer resection are lacking. We aimed to determine independent predictors for high-risk PanNETs and patient outcomes after surgery. METHODS: We analyzed relevant clinicopathological parameters in 319 consecutive patients of derivation cohort 1 and 106 patients of validation cohort 2 who underwent pancreatectomy and were diagnosed with PanNETs. Association of tumor characteristics with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Cox regression. RESULTS: PanNET grade 3 (G3), pancreatic duct dilatation, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors for RFS and were significantly associated with early recurrence (within 1.5 years) of PanNETs after curative resection (P = 0.019, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). Using these factors, we established a novel risk factor panel (R-panel), which predicted early recurrence (P < 0.001, HR = 15.02, 95% CI 5.76-39.19). Predictive accuracy of this R-panel was favorable, with a C-index of 0.853, higher than AJCC TNM staging (0.713). We further built an integrated staging system combining R-panel scoring and TNM staging, which improved predictive probability of TNM staging. Finally, we showed that adjuvant therapy with long-acting somatostatin analogs (SSAs) significantly reduced postoperative recurrence (P < 0.001) and prolonged long-term survival (P = 0.021) in patients with the above risk factors. CONCLUSION: We identified a novel risk factor panel, which includes PanNET G3, pancreatic duct dilatation, and perineural invasion; this panel predicted early recurrence of PanNETs after curative resection. Patients with these risk factors can benefit from adjuvant therapy with SSAs.

Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: A Perspective from Central Europe.

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to register changes determined by the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic surgery in a specific geographic area (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) to evaluate the impact of the pandemic and obtain interesting cues for the future. METHODS: An online survey was designed using Google Forms focusing on the local impact of the pandemic on pancreatic surgery. The survey was conducted at 2 different time points, during and after the lockdown. RESULTS: Twenty-five respondents (25/56) completed the survey. Many aspects of oncological care have been affected with restrictions and delays: staging, tumor board, treatment selection, postoperative course, adjuvant treatments, outpatient care, and follow-up. Overall, 60% of respondents have prioritized pancreatic cancer patients according to stage, age, and comorbidities, and 40% opted not to operate high-risk patients. However, for 96% of participants, the standards of care were guaranteed. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had an important impact on pancreatic cancer surgery in central Europe. Guidelines for prompt interventions and prevention of the spread of viral infections in the surgical environment are needed to avoid a deterioration of care in cancer patients in the event of a second wave or a new pandemic. High-volume centers for pancreatic surgery should be preferred and their activity maintained. Virtual conferences have proven to be efficient during this pandemic and should be implemented in the near future.

Impact of surgeon work duration prior to distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are likely to get progressively fatigued during the course of a normal workday. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of surgeon work duration prior to performing distal pancreatectomy (DP) on the perioperative outcome, especially frequency of grade II or higher grade postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing DP for all causes were divided into two groups according to surgeon work hours prior to performing DP: group A (less than 5 h) and group B (5-10 h). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (1:1) were performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Intraoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications and their severity were followed up for 60 days and mortality for 90 days. The study was powdered to identify a 15% difference in the incidence of grade II or higher grade complications. RESULTS: By using PSM analysis, the patients in group A (N = 202) and group B (N = 202) were well matched regarding demographics, comorbidities, operative technique, pancreatic texture and pathology. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade II or higher grade complications between the two groups. There was no difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, percutaneous drainage, readmission, reoperation, or morality. Group B was associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative organ injury, which could be managed successfully during the operation. CONCLUSION: The retrospective study demonstrated that the surgeon work duration did not significantly affect the clinical outcome of DP.

Surgical indication for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm.

BACKGROUND: In intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a mural nodule ≥5 mm is an important predictor of malignancy. Surgical indication is less clear in cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm. This is a retrospective study evaluating predictors of high-grade dysplasia or invasive intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm. METHODS: Among consecutive patients who underwent surgery for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm between 1999 and 2018, 174 had intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with mural nodule ≥5 mm (mural nodule[+] ≥5 mm group). The remaining 155 patients had intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm but did not have mural nodule ≥5 mm: 24 patients with mural nodule <5 mm (mural nodule[+] <5 mm group) and 131 patients without mural nodule (mural nodule[-] group). We investigated predictors of high-grade dysplasia or invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm. RESULTS: The frequency of high-grade dysplasia invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm was significantly higher in the mural nodule(+) ≥5 mm group (87.4%) than in the mural nodule(+) <5 mm group (37.5%, P < .001) and mural nodule(-) group (45.0%, P < .001). However, frequency was not significantly different between mural nodule(+) <5 mm and mural nodule(-) groups (P = .494). Multivariate analysis showed three independent predictors of high-grade dysplasia invasive intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm: branch cyst ≥40 mm (P = .038, odds ratio 3.704; 95% confidence interval, 1.075-12.821), positive cytology of pancreatic juice (P = .039, odds ratio 16.792; 95% confidence interval, 1.152-244.744), and carcinoembryonic antigen in pancreatic juice ≥30 mg/mL (P < .001, odds ratio 14.925; 95% confidence interval, 4.525-50.0). CONCLUSION: For cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm without mural nodule ≥5 mm, large cysts, positive cytology of the pancreatic juice, and high levels of carcinoembryonic antigen in pancreatic juice may be useful to determine surgical indication, although further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Laparoscopic Radical Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Surgical Strategy and Technique Video.

Radical resection margins, resection of Gerota's (perirenal) fascia, and adequate lymph node dissection are crucial for an adequate oncological resection of left-sided pancreatic cancer. Several surgical techniques have been described in recent years, but few were specifically designed for minimally invasive approaches. This study describes and demonstrates a standardized and reproducible technique for an adequate oncological resection of pancreatic cancer: laparoscopic radical left pancreatectomy (LRLP). A 61-year-old woman presented with an incidental finding of a 3 cm mass in the left pancreas suspect for malignancy. Imaging did not reveal distant metastases, central vascular involvement, or morbid obesity, hence the patient was suitable for LRLP. This study describes the main steps of LRLP for pancreatic cancer. First, the lesser sac is opened by transecting the gastrocolic ligament. The splenic flexure of the colon is mobilized and the inferior border of the pancreas including Gerota's fascia is dissected down to the inferior border of the spleen. The pancreas is tunneled and hung, including Gerota's fascia with a vessel loop. At the pancreatic neck, a tunnel is created between the pancreas and the portal vein, likewise a vessel loop is passed. The pancreas is then transected using the graded compression technique with an endostapler. Both the splenic vein and artery are transected before completing the resection. The entire specimen is extracted in a retrieval bag via a small Pfannenstiel incision. Duration of the surgery was 210 min with 250 mL blood loss. Pathology revealed a R0-resection (>1 mm) of a well-to-moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma originating from an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. A total of 15 tumor-negative lymph nodes were resected. This is a detailed description of LRLP for left-sided pancreatic cancer as is currently being used within the international, multicenter randomized DIPLOMA (Distal Pancreatectomy Minimally Invasive or Open for PDAC) trial.

Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery.

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Review of the diagnosis and management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms are common lesions with the potential of harbouring/developing a pancreatic cancer. An accurate evaluation of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-resolution imaging techniques and endoscopic ultrasound is mandatory in order to identify patients worthy either of surgical treatment or surveillance. In this review, the diagnosis and management of patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms are discussed with a specific focus on current guidelines. Areas of uncertainty are also discussed, as there are controversies related to the optimal indications for surgery, surveillance protocols and surveillance discontinuation.

Results of a survey on peri-operative nutritional support in pancreatic and biliary surgery in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction: a survey on peri-operative nutritional support in pancreatic and biliary surgery among Spanish hospitals in 2007 showed that few surgical groups followed the 2006 ESPEN guidelines. Ten years later we sent a questionnaire to check the current situation. Methods: a questionnaire with 21 items sent to 38 centers, related to fasting time before and after surgery, nutritional screening use and type, time and type of peri-operative nutritional support, and number of procedures. Results: thirty-four institutions responded. The median number of pancreatic resections (head/total) was 29.5 (95% CI: 23.0-35; range, 5-68) (total, 1002); of surgeries for biliary malignancies (non-pancreatic), 9.8 (95% CI: 7.3-12.4; range, 2-30); and of main biliary resections for benign conditions, 10.4 (95% CI: 7.6-13.3; range, 2-33). Before surgery, only 41.2% of the sites used nutritional support (< 50% used any nutritional screening procedure). The mean duration of preoperative fasting for solid foods was 9.3 h (range, 6-24 h); it was 6.6 h for liquids (range, 2-12). Following pancreatic surgery, 29.4% tried to use early oral feeding, but 88.2% of the surveyed teams used some nutritional support; 26.5% of respondents used TPN in 100% of cases. Different percentages of TPN and EN were used in the other centers. In malignant biliary surgery, 22.6% used TPN always, and EN in 19.3% of cases. Conclusions: TPN is the commonest nutrition approach after pancreatic head surgery. Only 29.4% of the units used early oral feeding, and 32.3% used EN; 22.6% used TPN regularly after surgery for malignant biliary tumours. The 2006 ESPEN guideline recommendations are not regularly followed 12 years after their publication in our country.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Introducción: realizamos una encuesta sobre soporte nutricional perioperatorio en cirugía pancreática y biliar en hospitales españoles en 2007, que mostró que pocos grupos quirúrgicos seguían las guías de ESPEN 2006. Diez años después enviamos un cuestionario para comprobar la situación actual. Métodos: treinta y ocho centros recibieron un cuestionario con 21 preguntas sobre tiempo de ayunas antes y después de la cirugía, cribado nutricional, duración y tipo de soporte nutricional perioperatorio, y número de procedimientos. Resultados: respondieron 34 grupos. La mediana de pancreatectomías (cabeza/total) fue de 29,5 (IC 95%: 23,0-35; rango, 5-68) (total, 1002), la de cirugías biliares malignas de 9,8 (IC 95%: 7,3-12,4; rango, 2-30) y la de resecciones biliares por patología benigna de 10,4 (IC 95%: 7,6-13,3; rango, 2-33). Solo el 41,2% de los grupos utilizaban soporte nutricional antes de la cirugía (< 50% habian efectuado un cribado nutricional). El tiempo medio de ayuno preoperatorio para sólidos fue de 9,3 h (rango, 6-24 h), y de 6,6 h para líquidos (rango, 2-12). Tras la pancreatectomía, el 29,4% habían intentado administrar una dieta oral precoz, pero el 88,2% de los grupos usaron algún tipo de soporte nutricional y el 26,5% usaron NP en el 100% de los casos. Los demás grupos usaron diferentes porcentajes de NP y NE en sus casos. En la cirugía biliar maligna, el 22,6% utilizaron NP siempre y NE en el 19,3% de los casos. Conclusiones: la NP es el soporte nutricional más utilizado tras la cirugía de cabeza pancreática. Solo el 29,4% de las unidades usan nutrición oral precoz y el 32,3% emplean la NE tras este tipo de cirugía. El 22,6% de las instituciones usan NP habitualmente tras la cirugía de tumores biliares malignos. Las guías ESPEN 2006 no se siguen de forma habitual en nuestro país tras más de 10 años desde su publicación.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed. RESULTS: Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

Factors affecting readmission rates after pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a complex operation with a historic readmission rate of approximately 20%. Hospital readmissions lead to increased patient and health system costs, morbidity, and mortality making them a topic of great interest. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with readmission after pancreatectomy in order to target areas for improvement. METHODS: Pancreatectomy procedures for malignancy in adults from 2005 to 2011 were identified in the California State Inpatient Database. Descriptive analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between baseline variables and readmission status. Logistic regression models were developed to determine whether the bivariate associations identified persisted after adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 4262 patients who underwent a pancreatectomy, 843 (19.8%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmission rates by year did not vary over the study period. Results from multivariable analysis showed that males, Hispanics, Medicare recipients, patients with an initial length of stay >11 days, patients who were discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and those with chronic anemia were more likely to be readmitted compared to those without these characteristics. The majority of readmissions occurred within 15 days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions after pancreatectomy are multifactorial. Preoperative optimization, minimizing postoperative complications, and assuring patients have been evaluated by a multidisciplinary team may reduce the readmission rate.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.