Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Laparoscopy can detect metastases not visualised on CT scanning, enabling better assessment of the spread of cancer (staging of cancer). This is an update to a previous Cochrane Review published in 2013 evaluating the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the resectability with curative intent in people with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy performed as an add-on test to CT scanning in the assessment of curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via OvidSP (from inception to 15 May 2016), and Science Citation Index Expanded (from 1980 to 15 May 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of diagnostic laparoscopy in people with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan, where confirmation of liver or peritoneal involvement was by histopathological examination of suspicious (liver or peritoneal) lesions obtained at diagnostic laparoscopy or laparotomy. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. The specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy in all studies was 1 because there were no false positives since laparoscopy and the reference standard are one and the same if histological examination after diagnostic laparoscopy is positive. The sensitivities were therefore meta-analysed using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model. The probability of unresectability in people who had a negative laparoscopy (post-test probability for people with a negative test result) was calculated using the median probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies, and the negative likelihood ratio derived from the model (specificity of 1 assumed). The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of diagnostic laparoscopy compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with a total of 1146 participants in the meta-analysis. Only one study including 52 participants had a low risk of bias and low applicability concern in the patient selection domain. The median pre-test probability of unresectable disease after CT scanning across studies was 41.4% (that is 41 out of 100 participants who had resectable cancer after CT scan were found to have unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary sensitivity of diagnostic laparoscopy was 64.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 50.1% to 76.6%). Assuming a pre-test probability of 41.4%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for participants with a negative test result was 0.20 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.27). This indicates that if a person is said to have resectable disease after diagnostic laparoscopy and CT scan, there is a 20% probability that their cancer will be unresectable compared to a 41% probability for those receiving CT alone.A subgroup analysis of people with pancreatic cancer gave a summary sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 41.1% to 86.5%). The post-test probability of unresectable disease after being considered resectable on both CT and diagnostic laparoscopy was 18% compared to 40.0% for those receiving CT alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic laparoscopy may decrease the rate of unnecessary laparotomy in people with pancreatic and periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. On average, using diagnostic laparoscopy with biopsy and histopathological confirmation of suspicious lesions prior to laparotomy would avoid 21 unnecessary laparotomies in 100 people in whom resection of cancer with curative intent is planned.

Atypical leg symptoms: does routine measurement of the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) in primary care benefit patients?

Background : Managing patients with atypical leg symptoms in primary care can be problematic. Determining the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) may be readily performed to help diagnose peripheral arterial disease, but is often omitted where signs and symptoms are unclear. Question: Does routine measurement of ABPI in patients with atypical leg symptoms aid management increase satisfaction and safely reduce hospital referral? Methodology: Patients with atypical leg symptoms but no skin changes or neurological symptoms underwent clinical review and Doppler ABPI measurement (suspicious finding ≤ 1.0). Testing was performed by the same doctor (study period: 30 months). Patient outcomes were determined from practice records, hospital letters and a telephone survey. Results : The study comprised 35 consecutive patients (males: N = 15), mean age 64 years (range: 39-88). Presentation included pain, cold feet, cramps, irritation and concerns regarding circulation. Prior to ABPI measurement, referral was considered necessary in 10, not required in 22 and unclear in 3. ABPI changed the referral decision in 10 (29%) and confirmed the decision in 25 (71%). During the study, 10 (29%) patients were referred (9 vascular, 1 neurology). Amongst the vascular referrals, significant peripheral arterial disease has been confirmed in six patients. A further two patients are under review and one did not attend. To date, lack of referral in patients with atypical leg symptoms but a normal ABPI has not increased morbidity. Current status was assessed by telephone review in 16/35 (46% contact rate; mean 18 months, range 2-28). Fifteen patients (94%) appreciated that their symptoms had been quickly and conveniently assessed, 8/11 (73%) with a normal ABPI were reassured by their result and in 8/11 symptoms have resolved. Discussion/Conclusion: APBI conveniently aids management of atypical leg symptoms by detecting unexpected peripheral arterial disease, avoids /confirms the need for referral, reassures patients and guides reassessment. This study suggests ABPI should be used more widely.

Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Laparoscopy can detect metastases not visualised on CT scanning, enabling better assessment of the spread of cancer (staging of cancer). There has been no systematic review or meta-analysis assessing the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy performed as an add-on test to CT scanning in the assessment of curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via OvidSP (from inception to 13 September 2012), and Science Citation Index Expanded (from 1980 to 13 September 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan, where confirmation of liver or peritoneal involvement was by histopathological examination of suspicious (liver or peritoneal) lesions obtained at diagnostic laparoscopy or laparotomy. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. The specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy in all studies was 1 because there were no false positives since laparoscopy and the reference standard are one and the same if histological examination after diagnostic laparoscopy is positive. Therefore, the sensitivities were meta-analysed using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model. The probability of unresectability in patients who had a negative laparoscopy (post-test probability for patients with a negative test result) was calculated using the median probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the negative likelihood ratio derived from the model (specificity of 1 assumed). The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of diagnostic laparoscopy compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies with a total of 1015 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study including 52 patients had a low risk of bias and low applicability concern in the patient selection domain. The median pre-test probability of unresectable disease after CT scanning across studies was 40.3% (that is 40 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan were found to have unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary sensitivity of diagnostic laparoscopy was 68.7% (95% CI 54.3% to 80.2%). Assuming a pre-test probability of 40.3%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for patients with a negative test result was 0.17 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.24). This indicates that if a patient is said to have resectable disease after diagnostic laparoscopy and CT scan, there is a 17% probability that their cancer will be unresectable compared to a 40% probability for those receiving CT alone.A subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer gave a summary sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 41.1% to 86.5%). The post-test probability of unresectable disease after being considered resectable on both CT and diagnostic laparoscopy was 18% compared to 40% for those receiving CT alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic laparoscopy may decrease the rate of unnecessary laparotomy in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. On average, using diagnostic laparoscopy with biopsy and histopathological confirmation of suspicious lesions prior to laparotomy would avoid 23 unnecessary laparotomies in 100 patients in whom resection of cancer with curative intent is planned.

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration via choledochotomy followed by primary duct closure is feasible and safe for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: The common bile duct traditionally is managed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones, but this approach carries an associated tube-related morbidity rate, including bile leak, of 10.5-20 %. This study examined the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) followed by primary duct closure. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 120 consecutive patients (81 female) who underwent LCBDE between October 2002 and October 2012. The duct primarily was closed in all patients. The results are given as median (range). RESULTS: Trans-CBD exploration was performed in 120 patients and all cases were successfully completed laparoscopically. The maximum diameter of the CBD was 9.4 (3-30) mm and the number of CBD stones detected was 3 (0-20). The biliary tree was clear at the end of exploration in 116 patients (96.7 %). The operating time was 122 (70-360) min. The mortality rate, morbidity rate, postoperative bile leak rate, rate of retained CBD stones after the primary procedure, and CBD stricture rate at a follow-up of 39.2 (2-82) months were 0, 8.3, 2.5, 3.3, and 0.8 %, respectively. The postoperative hospital stay was 2.1 (1-29) days. CONCLUSION: Primary duct closure following LCBDE is safe, can be employed routinely as an alternative to T-tube insertion, and has a short hospital stay and low morbidity rate.