Somatostatin Versus Octreotide for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: The PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial: A FRENCH 007-ACHBT Study.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is open to debate. The present study compares clinically significant POPF rates in patients randomized between somatostatin versus octreotide as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric randomized controlled open study in patient's candidate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) comparing somatostatin continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days versus octreotid 100 µg, every 8 hours subcutaneous injection for 7 days, stratified by procedure (PD vs DP) and size of the main pancreatic duct (>4 mm) on grade B/C POPF rates at 90 days based on an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 763 eligible patients, 651 were randomized: 327 in the octreotide arm and 324 in the somatostatin arm, with comparable the stratification criteria - type of surgery and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Most patients had PD (n=480; 73.8%), on soft/normal pancreas (n=367; 63.2%) with a nondilated main pancreatic duct (n=472; 72.5%), most often for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=311; 47.8%). Almost all patients had abdominal drainage (n=621; 96.1%) and 121 (19.5%) left the hospital with the drain in place (median length of stay=16 days). A total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous somatostatin is not statistically different from subcutaneous octreotide in the prevention of grade B/C POPF after pancreatectomy. FINDINGS: In the PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial including 651 patients, a total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no significant difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis.

A reappraisal of the deep uterine vein: a multimodal exploration with implications for pelvic surgery.

PURPOSE: Pelvic gynecological surgeries, whether for malignant or benign conditions, frequently result in functional complications due to injuries to the autonomic nervous system. Recognizing the deep uterine vein (DUV) as an essential anatomical reference can aid in preserving these structures. Despite its significance, the DUV is infrequently studied and lacks comprehensive documentation in Terminologia Anatomica. This research endeavors to elucidate a detailed characterization of the DUV. METHODS: We undertook a systematic literature review aligning with the "PRISMA" guidelines, sourcing from PUBMED and EMBASE. Our comprehensive anatomical examination encompassed cadaveric dissections and radio-anatomical evaluations utilizing the Anatomage® Table. RESULTS: The literary exploration revealed a consensus on the DUV's description based on both anatomical and surgical observations. It arises from the merger of cervical, vesical, and vaginal veins, coursing through the paracervix in a descending and rearward direction before culminating in the internal iliac vein. The hands-on anatomical study further delineated the DUV's associations throughout its course, highlighting its role in bifurcating the uterus's lateral aspect into two distinct zones: a superior vascular zone housing the uterine artery and ureter and an inferior nervous segment below the DUV representing the autonomic nerve pathway. CONCLUSION: A profound understanding of the subperitoneal space anatomy is paramount for pelvic surgeons to mitigate postoperative complications. The DUV's intricate neurovascular interplays underscore its significance as an indispensable surgical guide for safeguarding nerves and the ureter.

Predictive value of C-reactive protein for postoperative liver-specific surgical site infections.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein is a useful biological tool to predict infectious complications, but its predictive value in detecting organ-specific surgical site infection after liver resection has never been studied. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of c-reactive protein and determine the cut-off values to detect postoperative liver resection-surgical site infection. METHODS: A multicentric analysis of consecutive patients with liver resection between 2018 and 2021 was performed. The predictive value of postoperative day 1, postoperative day 3, and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein levels was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Cut-off values were determined using the Youden index in a 500-fold bootstrap resampling of 500 patients treated at 3 centers, who comprised the development cohort and were tested in an external independent validation cohort of 166 patients at a fourth center. RESULTS: Among the 500 patients who underwent liver resection of the development cohort, liver resection-surgical site infection occurred in 66 patients (13.2%), and the median time to diagnosis was 6.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-9.0) days. Median C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher on postoperative day 1, postoperative day 3, and postoperative day 5 in the liver resection-surgical site infection group compared with the non-surgical site infection group (50.5 vs 34.5 ng/mL, 148.0 vs 72.5 ng/mL, and 128.4 vs 35.2 ng/mL, respectively; P < .001). Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein-level area under the curve values were 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.88, P < .001) and 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.92, P < .001), respectively. Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 optimal cut-off values of 100 mg/L and 87.0 mg/L could be used to rule out liver resection-surgical site infection, with a negative predictive value of 87.0% (interquartile range, 70.2-93.8) and 76.0% (interquartile range, 65.0-88.0), respectively, in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein levels may be valuable predictive tools for liver resection-surgical site infection and aid in hospital discharge decision-making in the absence of other liver-related complications.

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.