Early Versus Late Drainage Removal in Patients Who Underwent Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Using Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of early drain removal (EDR) versus late (LDR) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been demonstrated only in RCTs. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and trial sequential analysis. The critical endpoints were morbidity, redrainage, relaparotomy, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates were also evaluated. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Type I and type II errors were excluded, comparing the accrued sample size (ASS) with the required sample size (RIS). When RIS is superior to ASS, type I or II errors can be hypothesized. RESULTS: ASS was 632 for all endpoints except DGE and PPH (557 patients). The major morbidity (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.97) was lower in the EDR group. The CR-POPF rate was lower in the EDR than in the LDR group (RR 0.50), but this difference is not statistically significant (95% CI 0.24-1.03). The RIS to confirm or exclude these results can be reached by randomizing 5959 patients. The need for percutaneous drainage, relaparotomy, PPH, DGE, and readmission rates was similar. The related RISs were higher than ASS, and type II errors cannot be excluded. LOS was shorter in the EDR than the LDR group (MD - 2.25; 95% CI - 3.23 to - 1.28). The RIS was 567, and type I errors can be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: EDR, compared with LDR, is associated with lower major morbidity and shorter LOS.

Physical Prehabilitation in Patients who Underwent Major Abdominal Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Component Network Meta-Analysis Using GRADE and CINeMA Approach.

BACKGROUND: Physical prehabilitation is recommended before major abdominal surgery to ameliorate short-term outcomes. METHODS: A frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to clarify which type of preoperative physical activity among aerobic exercise (AE), inspiratory muscle training (IMT), and resistance training produces benefits in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery. The surface under the P-score, odds ratio (OR), or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. The results were adjusted by using the component network approach. The critical endpoints were overall and major morbidity rate and mortality rate. The important but not critical endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and pneumonia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 25 studies. The best approaches for overall morbidity rate were AE and AE + IMT (OR = 0.61, p-score = 0.76, and OR = 0.66, p-score = 0.68). The best approaches for pneumonia were AE + IMT and AE (OR = 0.21, p-score = 0.91, and OR = 0.52, p-score = 0.68). The component analysis confirmed that the best incremental OR (0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.74) could be obtained using AE + IMT. The best approach for LOS was AE alone (MD - 1.63 days; 95% CI - 3.43 to 0.18). The best combination of components was AE + IMT (MD - 1.70; 95% CI - 2.06 to - 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Physical prehabilitation reduces the overall morbidity rate, pneumonia, and length of stay. The most relevant effect of prehabilitation requires the simultaneous use of AE and IMT.

An Update on Appendiceal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

The mainstay of appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasm (aNEN) treatment is surgery, based on simple appendectomy or right-sided hemicolectomy with lymphadenectomy (RHC). The majority of aNENs are adequately treated with appendectomy, but current guidelines have poor accuracy in terms of selecting patients requiring RHC, especially in aNENs 1-2 cm in size. Simple appendectomy is curative for appendiceal NETs (G1-G2) < 1 cm (if the resection status is R0), whereas RHC with lymph node dissection is recommended in tumors ≥ 2 cm in diameter, based on the high risk of nodal metastases in these cases. The clinical management of aNENs 1-2 cm in size is more controversial because lymph node or distant metastases are uncommon but possible. In our opinion, patients with tumor size > 15 mm or with grading G2 (according to WHO 2010) and/or lympho-vascular invasion should be referred for radicalization with RHC. However, decision-making in these cases should include discussion within a multidisciplinary tumor board at referral centers with the aim of offering each patient a tailored treatment, also considering that relatively young patients with long-life expectancy represent the majority of cases.

Trial sequential meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: is it the time to stop the randomization?

BACKGROUND: The advantages of LPD compared with OPD remain debatable. The study aimed to compare the laparoscopic (LPD) versus open (OPD) for pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized studies (RCTs) comparing LPD and OPD was made. The results were reported as relative risk (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). The trial sequential analysis was used to test the type I and type II errors defining the required information size (RIS). The primary outcome was mortality, major morbidity, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). R1 resection, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, biliary fistula, reoperation, readmission, operative time (OT), lymph nodes harvested, and length of stay (LOS) were also studied. RESULTS: Four RCTs, counting 818 patients, were found. The RRs for mortality, major morbidity, and POPF were 1.16, 1.04, and 0.86, without significant differences. The RISs were 35,672, 16,548, and 8206. To confirm this equivalence, at least 34,854, 15,730, and 7338 should be randomized. OT was significantly longer in LPD than OPD, with an MD of 63.22. The LOS was significantly shorter in LPD than in OPD, with - 1.76 days. The RISs were 1297 and 1273, excluding a false-positive result. No significant differences were observed for the remaining endpoints, and RISs suggested that more than 3000 patients should be randomized to confirm the equivalence. CONCLUSION: The equivalence of LPD and OPD for mortality, major morbidity, and POPF is affected by type II error. The RISs to demonstrate a superiority of one of the two techniques seem unrealistic to obtain.

The Presence of an Aberrant Right Hepatic Artery Did Not Influence Surgical and Oncological Outcomes After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The presence of an aberrant right hepatic artery (a-RHA) could influence the oncological and postoperative results after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A systematic review and metanalysis were conducted, including all comparative studies having patients who underwent PD without (na-RHA) or with a-RHA. The results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95 CI). The random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes. The endpoints were distinguished as critical and important. Critical endpoints were: R1 resection, overall survival (OS), morbidity, mortality, and biliary fistula (BL). Important endpoints were: postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), length of stay (LOS), and operative time (OT). RESULTS: Considering the R1 rate no significant differences were observed between the two groups (RR 1.06; 0.89 to 1.27). The two groups have a similar OS (HR 0.95; 0.85 to 1.06). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between the two groups, with a RR of 0.97 (0.88 to 1.06) and 0.81 (0.54 to 1.20), respectively. The biliary fistula rate was similar between the two groups (RR of 1.09; 0.72 to 1.66). No differences were observed for non-critical endpoints. CONCLUSION: The presence of a-RHA does not affect negatively the short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of PD.

Appendiceal goblet cell carcinoma has marginal advantages from perioperative chemotherapy: a population-based study with an entropy balancing analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim is to clarify the use of perioperative chemotherapy in resectable goblet cell carcinoma (GCC). METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results study. The population was divided: into patients who received only radical surgery (group A) and those who received radical surgery plus chemotherapy (group B). An entropy balancing was carried out to correct the imbalance between the two groups. Two models were generated. Model 1 contained only high-risk patients: group B and a "virtual" group A with similar characteristics. Model 2 included only low-risk patients: group A and "virtual" group B with identical attributes. The efficacy of entropy balancing was evaluated with the d value. The overall survival was compared and reported with Hazard Ratio (HR) within a confidence interval of 95% (95 CI). RESULTS: The groups A and B were imbalanced for tumor size (d = 0.392), T (d = 1.128), N (d = 1.340), M (d = 1.456), mean number of positive lymph nodes (d = 0.907), and LNR (d = 0.889). Before the balancing, the risk of death was higher in group B than in A (4.3; 2.5 to 7.4). After reweighting, all large differences were eliminated (d < 0.200). In high-risk patients, the risk of death was higher in patients who underwent surgery alone than those who received perioperative chemotherapy (HR 0.5; 0.2 to 1.3) without statistical significance (p = 0.187). In low-risk patients, the risk of death was similar (HR 1.1; 0.3 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Perioperative chemotherapy could provide some marginal advantages to high-risk patients.

Value of immunonutrition in patients undergoing pancreatic resection: a trial sequential meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of immunonutrition (IM) in patients who underwent pancreatic surgery are unclear. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IM with standard nutrition (SN) in pancreatic surgery was carried out. A random-effects trial sequential meta-analysis was made, reporting Risk Ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), and required information size (RIS). If RIS was reached, false negative (type II error) and positive results (type I error) could be excluded. The endpoints were morbidity, mortality, infectious complication, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The meta-analysis includes 6 RCTs and 477 patients. Morbidity (RR 0.77; 0.26 to 2.25), mortality (RR 0.90; 0.76 to 1.07), and POPF rates were similar. The RISs were 17,316, 7,417, and 464,006, suggesting a type II error. Infectious complications were lower in the IM group, with a RR of 0.54 (0.36-0.79; 95 CI). The LOS was shorter in IM (MD -0.3 days; -0.6 to -0.1). For both, the RISs were reached, excluding type I error. CONCLUSION: The IM can reduce infectious complications and LOS The small differences in mortality, morbidity, and POPF make it impossible to exclude type II error due to large RISs.

Survival after active surveillance versus upfront surgery for incidental small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

BACKGROUND: The safety of observing small non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-Pan-NETs) remains under debate. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients with small incidental NF-Pan-NETs. Survival of patients who underwent upfront surgery versus active surveillance was compared. The risk of death was matched with that in the healthy population. The excess hazard rate and probability of a normal lifespan (NLP) were calculated. Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1 : 1 ratio was used to minimize the risk of selection bias. RESULTS: Some 222 patients (43.7 per cent) underwent upfront surgery and 285 (56.3 per cent) were observed. The excess hazard rate for the entire cohort was quantifiable as 0.04 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 0.08) deaths per 1000 persons per year, and the NLP was 99.7 per cent. Patients in the active surveillance group were older (median age 65 versus 58 years; P < 0.001), and more often had co-morbidity (45.3 versus 24.8 per cent; P = 0.001), and smaller tumours (median 12 versus 13 mm; P < 0.001), less frequently located in the pancreatic body-tail (59.5 versus 69.6 per cent; P = 0.008, 59.3 versus 73.9 per cent; P = 0.001). Median follow-up was longer for patients who underwent upfront surgery (5.6 versus 2.7 years; P < 0.001). After PSM, 118 patients per group were included. The excess hazard rates were 0.2 and 0.9 deaths per 1000 persons per year (P = 0.020) for patients in the active surveillance and upfront surgery groups respectively. Corresponding NLPs were 99.9 and 99.5 per cent respectively (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Active surveillance of small incidental NF-Pan-NETs is a reasonable alternative to resection.

EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones. METHODS: We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions. RESULTS: The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ). CONCLUSION: We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN170.

Development and validation of a preoperative "difficulty score" for laparoscopic transabdominal adrenalectomy: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A difficulty score for laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is lacking in the literature. A retrospective cohort study was designed to develop a preoperative "difficulty score" for LA. METHODS: A multicenter study was conducted involving four Italian tertiary centers for adrenal disease. The population was randomly divided into two subsets: training group and validation one. A multicenter study was undertaken, including 964 patients. Patient, adrenal lesion, surgeon's characteristics, and the type of procedure were studied as potential predictors of target events. The operative time (pOT), conversion rate (cLA), or both were used as indicators of the difficulty in three multivariate models. All models were developed in a training cohort (70% of the sample) and validated using 30% of patients. For all models, the ability to predict complicated postoperative course was reported describing the area under the curve (AUCs). Logistic regression, reporting odds ratio (OR) with p-value, was used. RESULTS: In model A, gender (OR 2.04, p = 0.001), BMI (OR 1.07, p = 0.002), previous surgery (OR 1.29, p = 0.048), site (OR 21.8, p < 0.001) and size of the lesion (OR 1.16, p = 0.002), cumulative sum of procedures (OR 0.99, p < 0.001), extended (OR 26.72, p < 0.001) or associated procedures (OR 4.32, p = 0.015) increased the pOT. In model B, ASA (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), lesion size (OR 1.20, p = 0.005), and extended resection (OR 8.85, p = 0.007) increased the cLA risk. Model C had similar results to model A. All scores obtained predicted the target events in validation cohort (OR 1.99, p < 0.001; OR 1.37, p = 0.007; OR 1.70, p < 0.001, score A, B, and C, respectively). The AUCs in predicting complications were 0.740, 0.686, and 0.763 for model A, B, and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: A difficulty score based on both pOT and cLA (Model C) was developed using 70% of the sample. The score was validated using a second cohort. Finally, the score was tested, and its results are able to predict a complicated postoperative course.

Converted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is there an impact on patient outcome and total cost?

PURPOSE: Recent studies have reported worse outcomes of converted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (CLDP) with respect to total laparoscopic (TLDP) and open (ODP). The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on patient outcome and on total cost. METHODS: Patients requiring a conversion (CLDP) were compared with both TLDP and ODP patients. The relevant patient- and tumour-related variables were collected for each patient. Both intra and postoperative data were extracted. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was carried out to equate the groups compared. RESULTS: Two hundred and five patients underwent DP, 105 (51.2%) ODPs, 81 (39.5%) TLDPs, and 19 (9.3%) CLDPs. After PSM, 19 CLDPs, 38 TLDPs, and 38 ODPs were compared. Patients who underwent CLDP showed a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), and an increase in blood loss (P = 0.032) and total cost (P = 0.034) with respect to TLDP, and a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), less frequent postoperative morbidity (P = 0.050), and a higher readmission rate (P = 0.035) with respect to ODP. CONCLUSION: Total laparoscopic pancreatectomy was superior regarding operative findings and total costs with respect to CLDP; ODP showed a higher postoperative morbidity rate and a lower readmission rate with respect to CLDP. However, the reasons for the readmission of patients who underwent CLDP were mainly related to postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B which is usually due to pancreas texture. Thus, the majority of distal pancreatectomies can be started using a minimally invasive approach, performing an early conversion if necessary.

Minimally invasive adrenalectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized clinical controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The best approach for minimally invasive adrenalectomy is still under debate. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized clinical trials was carried out. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was made reporting the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). The primary endpoint regarded both in-hospital mortality and morbidity. The secondary endpoints were operative time (OP), blood loss (BL), length of stay (LOS), conversion, incisional hernia, and disease recurrence rate. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, involving 359 patients clustered as follows: 175 (48.7%) in the TPLA arm; 55 (15.3%) in the RPLA arm; 10 (2.8%) in the Ro-TPLA arm; 25 (7%) in the TPAA arm; 20 (5.6%) in the SILS-LA arm; and 74 (20.6%) in the RPA arm. The RPLA had the highest probability of being the safest approach (SUCRA 69.6%), followed by RPA (SUCRA 63.0%). TPAA, Ro-TPLA, SILS-LA, and TPLA have similar probability of being safe (SUCRA values 45.2%, 43.4%, 43.0%, and 38.5%, respectively). Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of RPA regarding OP, BL, LOS, and incisional hernia rate. CONCLUSIONS: The best choice for patients with adrenal masses candidate for minimally invasive surgery seems to be RPA. An alternative could be RPLA. The remaining approaches could have some specific advantages but do not represent the first minimally invasive choice.

Treatment for Infected Pancreatic Necrosis Should be Delayed, Possibly Avoiding an Open Surgical Approach: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate all invasive treatments for suspected IPN. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal invasive treatment for suspected IPN remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 invasive strategies for the treatment of suspected IPN was carried out. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was made reporting the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). The primary endpoint regarded both the in-hospital mortality and major morbidity rates. The secondary endpoints were mortality, length of stay, intensive care unit stay, the pancreatic fistula rate, and exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. RESULTS: Seven studies were included, involving 400 patients clustered as following: 64 (16%) in early surgical debridement (ED); 27 (6.7%) in peritoneal lavage (PL); 45 (11.3%) in delayed surgical debridement (DD), 169 (42.3%) in the step-up approach with minimally invasive debridement (SUA-DD) and 95 (23.7%) with endoscopic debridement (SUA-EnD). The step-up approach with endoscopic debridement had the highest probability of being the safest approach (SUCRA 87.1%), followed by SUA-DD (SUCRA 59.5%); DD, ED, and PL had the lowest probability of being safe (SUCRA values 27.6%, 31.4%, and 44.4%, respectively). Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of SUA-EnD regarding length of stay, intensive care unit stay, pancreatic fistula rate, and new-onset diabetes. The SUA approaches are similar regarding exocrine function. Mortality was reduced by any delayed approaches (DD, SUA-DD, or SUA-EnD). CONCLUSIONS: The first choice for suspected IPN seemed to be SUA-EnD. An alternative could be SUA-DD. PL, ED, and DD should be avoided.

The learning curve for the second generation of laparoscopic surgeons: lesson learned from a large series of laparoscopic adrenalectomies.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has a well-demonstrated learning curve in the first generation of laparoscopic surgeons. Data about the second generation of laparoscopic surgeons are lacking. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, data from patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy from 2000 to 2019 in a high-volume center were collected and analyzed. The cumulative sum of procedures of each surgeon and the operating time were evaluated. A multivariate analysis with backward stepwise logistic regression was carried out to define which factors influenced the operative time. Three surgeons performed the analyzed procedures: a senior surgeon who began his laparoscopic activity without receiving specific training or supervision and two young surgeons, who performed their procedures under the guidance of the "senior" experienced surgeon. The first 38 procedures of the three surgeons were then compared. RESULTS: A total of 244 laparoscopic adrenalectomies were performed. Age, clinical diagnosis, side of the lesion, body mass index, comorbidities, Charlson index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, and lower abdominal surgery were found to have no significant relationship with the operative time (p > 0.05). Gender, symptoms, previous upper abdominal surgery, size of the lesion, and cumulative sum of procedures were independent predictors of operative time. In the comparison between different surgeons, operative time resulted significantly longer for the senior (165 min; 140-180) than for the two junior surgeons (137.5 min; 115-160; p = 0.003 and 130 min; 120-170; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a mentor in operative theater and specific training programs could be useful during the learning period. The cumulative sum of procedures related to the operative time represents a good parameter to measure the acquired expertise of a surgeon.

Blumgart Anastomosis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. A Comprehensive Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of Blumgart anastomosis (BA) over non-BA duct to mucosa (non-BA DtoM) still remains under debate. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of studies comparing BA to non-BA DtoM. The primary endpoint was CR-POPF. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), reoperation rate, and length of stay (LOS) were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The meta-analysis was carried out using random effect. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), weighted mean difference (WMD), and number needed to treat (NNT). RESULTS: Twelve papers involving 2368 patients: 1075 BA and 1193 non-BA DtoM were included. Regarding the primary endpoint, BA was superior to non-BA DtoM (RD = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04; NNT = 9). The multivariate ORs' meta-analysis confirmed BA's protective role (OR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.79). BA was superior to DtoM regarding overall morbidity (RD = -0.10; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02; NNT = 25), PPH (RD = -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; NNT = 33), and LOS (- 4.2 days; -7.1 to -1.2 95% CI). CONCLUSION: BA seems to be superior to non-BA DtoM in avoiding CR-POPF.

The Usefulness of a Preoperative Nomogram for Predicting the Probability of Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) represents a challenging procedure with a high conversion rate. A nomogram is a simple statistical predictive tool which is superior to risk groups. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a preoperative nomogram for predicting the probability of conversion from laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LDP. For each patient demographic, pre-intra- and postoperative data were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify the factors significantly influencing the conversion rate. The effect of each factor was weighted using the beta coefficient (ß), and a nomogram was built. Finally, a logistic regression between the score and the conversion rate was carried out to calibrate the nomogram. RESULTS: The conversion rate was 19.0%. At multivariate analysis, female (ß = - 1.8 ± 0.9; P = 0.047) and tail location of the tumor (ß = - 2.1 ± 1.1; P = 0.050) were significantly related to a low probability of conversion. Body mass index (BMI) (ß = 0.2 ± 0.1; P = 0.011) and subtotal pancreatectomy (ß = 2.4 ± 0.9; P = 0.006) were factors independently related to a high probability of conversion. The nomogram constructed had a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 18 points. The probability of conversion increased significantly starting from a minimum score of 6 points (P = 0.029; conversion probability 14.4%; 95%CI, 1.5-27.3%) up to 16 (P = 0.048; 27.8%; 95%CI, 0.2-48.7%). CONCLUSION: The nomogram proposed could serve as an effective preoperative tool capable of assessing the probability of conversion, allowing to take reliable decisions regarding indications and adequate stepwise training program of LDP.

The use of comprehensive complication Index® in pancreatic surgery: a comparison with the Clavien-Dindo system in a high volume center.

BACKGROUND: The Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) system and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) are both widely used methods for reporting the burden of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the CDC and CCI® in predicting outcomes associated with pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The CCI® and CDC were applied to 668 patients who underwent pancreatic resection. Length of postoperative stay (LOS) was chosen as the primary outcome variable. The comparison between CCI® and CDC was made with the Spearman test, reporting þs with standard error (SE) and logistic regression, reporting the Odds Ratio (OR) and Area Under the Curve with SE. RESULTS: The median value with the interquartile range (IQR) of CCI® was 20.9 (0-29.6). Both CCI® (þs = 0.609) and CDC (0.590) were significantly (P < 0.001) correlated to LOS. CCI (OR 1.056 and OR 1.052) and CDC (OR 1.978, and OR 1.994) predicted (P < 0.001) LOS over the median and 75th percentile. The accuracy of CCI® was superior to CDC for LOS over 50th (0.785 vs. 0.740; P = 0.004) and over 75th (0.835 vs. 0.761; P < 0.001) percentile. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of CCI® in measuring the complicated postoperative course was superior to CDC, correctly classifying eight patients every ten tested.

Preoperative predictive factors of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy difficulty.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a challenging operation due to technical complexity and tumor-related factors. Aim of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors affecting LDP difficulty. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LDP between 2015 and 2018 at San Raffaele Hospital and Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital were enrolled retrospectively. Three variables were used to define surgical difficulty: conversion to open, duration of surgery >3rd quartile and intraoperative blood loss >3rd quartile. The presence of ≥1 of these 3 variables was considered as another measure of difficulty. RESULTS: Overall, 191 patients were included. Conversion to open was required in 25 patients (13%). At multiple regression analysis, tumor proximity to major vessels was the only independent predictor of conversion from laparoscopic to open (p < 0.001). No variables independently predicted an excessive duration of surgery. Male gender (p = 0.033) and increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.018) were independent predictors of excessive blood loss. Increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.014) and tumor proximity to major vessels (p = 0.002) were significant risk factors for the presence of ≥1 outcome of surgical difficulty. CONCLUSION: Male gender, increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line and tumor proximity to major vessels represent preoperative risk factors of LDP difficulty.

Management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Today, we do not have a universally accepted evidence on how to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from colorectal cancer (CRC) in international guidelines. METHODS: The present study is a review of the literature investigating current strategies to treat CRC PC. RESULTS: Despite the progresses of systemic chemotherapy, the presence of PC among patients with metastatic CRC reduces the overall survival to 30 %, and only 4 % of patients with PC from CRC treated are alive for 5 years. Many trials evaluate the combined treatment of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for CRC PC, suggesting a survival benefit in highly selected patients. Only one trial is randomized and presents some biases. The two main prognostic factors are Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) and completeness of cytoreduction score (CC score). There is no universal agreement on how to approach the synchronous presence of PC and liver metastasis with a curative intent during the same procedure. A growing interest among the scientific community has arisen about systematic second-look surgery and HIPEC treatment in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Current evidences suggest that CRS and HIPEC might be beneficial in highly selected patients affected with PC from CRC. Anyway, today, there is a shortage of well-designed phase 3 trials.