Immunonutrition in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery: A comprehensive systematic review and component network metanalysis using GRADE and CINeMA approaches.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of immunonutrition in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery have been recently established, but the optimal combination of immunonutrients has remained unclear. The aim is to clarify this point. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized clinical trials about immunonutrition in major abdominal surgery was made. A frequentist random-effects component network meta-analysis was conducted, reporting the P score and odds ratio or mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. The best components and best plausible strategies were described. The critical endpoints were morbidity and mortality rates. The important endpoints were infectious complication rate and length of stay. RESULTS: The meta-analysis includes 87 studies and 8,375 patients. The best approach for morbidity rate, with a moderate grade of certainty, was the use of perioperative enteral/oral immunonutrition with arginine, glutamine, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (odds ratio 0.32; 0.10 to 0.98; P score of 0.93). The mortality rate was reduced by postoperative enteral immunonutrition with RNA, arginine, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (odds ratio 59; 0.29 to 1.22; P score 0.84) but with a low grade of certainty. No significant heterogeneity or incoherence is observed. The length of stay and infectious results are "at risk" for high heterogeneity or network meta-analysis incoherence. The component analysis confirmed that postoperative oral/enteral use of 2 or 3 components is crucial to reducing morbidity rate. CONCLUSION: The oral/enteral immunonutrition in the postoperative period, with multiple immunonutrients, can reduce the morbidity rate in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The effect of immunonutrition on mortality, infectious disease, and length of stay is unclear.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival. RESULTS: Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with autoimmune pancreatitis.

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), in contrast to other benign chronic pancreatic diseases, can be cured with immunosuppressant drugs, thus the differentiation of AIP from pancreatic cancer is of particular interest in clinical practice. There is the possibility that some patients with AIP may develop pancreatic cancer, and this possibility contributes to increasing our difficulties in differentiating AIP from pancreatic cancer. We herein report the case of a 70-year-old man in whom pancreatic adenocarcinoma and AIP were detected simultaneously. We must carefully monitor AIP patients for the simultaneous presence of pancreatic cancer, even when a diagnosis of AIP is confirmed.