Pancreatic resection for metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: A single institution experience and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.

AIMS: To evaluate short-term clinical and long-term survival outcomes of pancreatic resection for pancreatic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing pancreatic resection for metastasis from RCC over a 12-years period was conducted. Furthermore, a systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted to identify studies investigating the same clinical question. Short-term clinical and long-term survival outcomes were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival plots were constructed for survival outcomes. Cox-proportional regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with survival. Finally, meta-analysis of survival outcomes was conducted using random-effects modelling. RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent pancreatic resections for RCC pancreatic metastasis within the study period. The mean age of the included patients was 63.8 ± 8.0 years. There were 10(55.6 %) male and 8(44.4 %) female patients. Pancreatectomy was associated with 4(25.0 %) Clavien-Dindo (C-D) I, 5(31.3 %) C-D II, and 7(43.7 %) C-D III complications, 7(38.8 %) pancreatic fistula, 3(16.7 %) post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis, 1(5.6 %) delayed gastric emptying, and 1(5.6 %) chyle leak. The mean length of hospital stay was 18 ± 16.3 days. The median survival was 64 months (95 % CI 60-78). The 3-and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 83.3 % and 55.5 %, respectively. The 3-and 5-year survival rates were 100 % and 55.6 %, respectively. The pooled analyses of 553 patients demonstrated 3-and 5-year survival rates of 77.6 % and 60.7 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatectomy for RCC metastasis is associated with acceptable short-term clinical and promising long-term survival outcomes. Considering the rarity of the entity, escalation of level of evidence in this context is challenging.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

Complete Common Bile Duct Injury after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis: A Case Report, Review of the Literature and Illustrative Case Video.

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Situs Inversus Totalis (SIT) is a rare condition characterized by the transposition of internal organs. Given the anatomical variations in SIT, surgeons must exercise extreme caution when performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy to avoid iatrogenic bile duct injury. Despite the high difficulty index associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in SIT, there is only one case report of common bile duct (CBD) injury in the English-language literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 41-year-old female patient, known to have Kartagener syndrome, underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and was discharged home on post-operative day one. However, on post-operative day five, the patient presented to the emergency room with abdominal pain, fever, and jaundice. Laboratory tests revealed leukocytosis and hyperbilirubinemia. Radiological images revealed complete occlusion of the CBD. A delayed approach was chosen, and six weeks after her initial operation, a hepaticojejunostomy was performed. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard operative procedure for gallbladder disease. The unique anatomy of SIT increases the risk of CBD injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeons are required to perform a mirror-image procedure and adhere to the basic principles of safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy in SIT. This is only the second reported case of CBD injury in SIT patients. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in SIT presents a significant challenge. In patients with SIT, preventing CBD injury is the best approach, and referral to an experienced hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeon is recommended. A delayed approach to CBD injuries in SIT allows thorough planning and understanding of the complex anatomical variations in these patients.

Meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy versus no adjuvant chemotherapy for resected stage I pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate comparative outcomes of pancreatic cancer resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All comparative studies reporting outcomes of pancreatic cancer resection for stage I cancer with or without adjuvant chemotherapy were included, and their risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the hazard ratio and odds ratio for the time-to-event and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: We included 6 comparative studies reporting a total of 6,874 patients with resected stage 1 pancreatic cancer, of whom 3,951 patients had no adjuvant chemotherapy, and the remaining 2,923 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher overall survival (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.82, P < .00001) and 2-year survival (65.1% vs 57.4%, odds ratio 1.99; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.41, P = .04) compared to no use of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year (86.8% vs 78.4%, odds ratio 1.60; 95% confidence interval 0.72-3.57, P = .25), 3-year (46.0% vs 44.0%, odds ratio 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.29, P = .43), or 5-year survival (24.8% vs 23.3%, odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.33, P = .81) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 2a with low to moderate certainty) demonstrates that adjuvant chemotherapy may confer survival benefits for stage I pancreatic cancer when compared to the use of surgery alone. Randomized control trials are required to escalate the level of evidence and confirm these findings with consideration of contemporary chemotherapy agents and regimens.

Preoperative C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin Ratio and Its Ability to Predict Outcomes of Pancreatic Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the c-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) in predicting outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. Survival outcomes and perioperative morbidity were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Eight studies reporting a total of 1056 patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection were identified. The median cut-off value for CAR was 0.05 (range 0.0003-0.54). Using multivariate analysis, all studies demonstrated that a higher CAR value was an independent and significant predictor of poor overall survival in patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) ranged from 1.4 to 3.6. Although there was a positive correlation between the reported cut-off values for CAR and HRs for overall survival, it was weak and non-significant (r = 0.36, n = 6, p = 0.480). There was significant between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CAR value seems to be an important prognostic score in predicting survival outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection. However, the current evidence does not allow the determination of an optimal cut-off value for CAR, considering the heterogeneous reporting of cut-off values by the available studies and the lack of knowledge of their sensitivity and specificity. Future research is required.