Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison.

PURPOSE: Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach. METHODS: A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered). RESULTS: From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy: single-center experience and technical aspects.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) is a technically demanding procedure. The aim of this article is to share our experience with LRPS and to highlight technical aspects of this procedure. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent LRPS between September 2011 and October 2017. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Video-in-picture (VIP) technology is used to facilitate and to highlight the technical aspects of this procedure. RESULTS: In total, 18 patients underwent LRPS. Indication for surgery was mainly liver metastases (n = 11) and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 6). The Glissonean approach for inflow control was used in 13 patients. Median operative time was 162 (140-190) minutes. Median blood loss was 325 mL (IQR: 150-450). One conversion (5.5%) was required. There were two minor complications and one major complication. Median hospital stay was 6 days (range 5-8 days). All patients had an R0 resection. There was no 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: The results of our experience in LRPS add weight to the feasibility and safety of this approach.

Rectal stercoral perforation: an uncommon anatomical localization of a rare surgical emergency.

A stercoral rectal perforation is an uncommon cause of acute abdominal pain with only limited cases documented in medical literature. Timely and accurate imaging is essential when this condition is suspected, and immediate surgical intervention is imperative upon confirming the diagnosis of bowel perforation. Usually, the definitive diagnosis of a stercoral rectal perforation is established intraoperatively and a Hartmann procedure with (temporary) end colostomy is performed. In this case report, we present our first-hand experience in managing a stercoral rectal perforation, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and rapid surgical intervention to achieve favorable outcomes.

30-day morbidity and mortality of revisional bariatric surgery - An international multi-centre collaborative (BROAD) study.

INTRODUCTION: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is increasing worldwide. There is currently no large multinational, prospective data on 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS at participating centres. METHODS: An international steering group was formed to oversee the study. The steering group members invited bariatric surgeons worldwide to participate in this study. Ethical approval was obtained at the lead centre. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive RBS patients operated between 15th May 2021 to 31st December 2021. Revisions for complications were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 65 global centres submitted data on 750 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy (n = 369, 49.2 %) was the most common primary surgery for which revision was performed. Revisional procedures performed included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 41.1 % (n = 308) patients, One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in 19.3 % (n = 145), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) in 16.7 % (n = 125) and other procedures in 22.9 % (n = 172) patients. Indications for revision included weight regain in 615(81.8 %) patients, inadequate weight loss in 127(16.9 %), inadequate diabetes control in 47(6.3 %) and diabetes relapse in 27(3.6 %). 30-day complications were seen in 80(10.7 %) patients. Forty-nine (6.5 %) complications were Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher. Two patients (0.3 %) died within 30 days of RBS. CONCLUSION: RBS for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is associated with 10.7 % morbidity and 0.3 % mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common primary procedure to undergo revisional bariatric surgery, while Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most commonly performed revision.

Unveiling the Hidden Culprit: A Case of Bile Leakage Post-Cholecystectomy Caused by a Luschka Duct.

Teaching Point: Recognize anatomical bile duct anomalies as a potential etiology of bile leakage post-cholecystectomy, and emphasize the importance of adequate radiological evaluation for correct management.

Combined Ablation and Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Era.

BACKGROUND: Thermal ablation is an accepted treatment modality for small and central liver tumors. In extensive colorectal liver metastatic disease (CRLM), hepatectomy can be combined with ablation, resulting in a parenchymal-sparing strategy. This may increase salvageability rates in case of recurrence. METHODS: All patients with advanced CRLM that underwent combined ablation and resection between April 2012 and April 2021, were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Primary endpoints include postoperative 30-day morbidity and ablation-site recurrence (ASR). The surgical approaches were compared. Ablated lesions were screened for ASR on postoperative follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Of 54 patients that underwent combined ablation and resection, 32 (59.3%) were performed through a minimally invasive approach. Eleven (20.4%) were minor resections, 32 (59.3%) were technically major and 11 (20.4%) were anatomically major resections. Twelve complications occurred (22.2%), among which 2 (3.8%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIa). Ninety-day mortality rate was 1.9%. Out of 82 ablated lesions, 6 ASRs (11.1%) occurred. Median blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group, compared with open [90 mL (32.5 to 200) vs. 200 mL (100 to 400), P =0.005]. Pringle maneuver was significantly performed less in the minimally invasive group [8 (25.0%) vs. 16 (72.7%), P =0.001], but took more time [36.1 min (±15.6) vs. 21.6 (±9.9); P =0.011]. Short-term (1 y) overall and disease-free survival were respectively 81.4% and 50.0%. CONCLUSION: Combining microwave ablation and liver resection is a feasible and safe parenchymal-sparing technique, through both minimally invasive and open approach for treating extended CRLM disease. It has a low ablation-related complication rate and acceptable ablation-site recurrence rate.

Stepwise implementation of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Case series of a single centre's experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery still represents a challenge for surgeons. However, in recent decades the experience is expanding. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is safe, feasible and worthwhile. This study analyses the first 100 consecutive LPRs in our centre. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the first 100 LPRs in a single supra-regional Belgian centre, performed between January 2012 and January 2019. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. All procedures were performed laparoscopically by two attending surgeons, specialized in minimally invasive and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. RESULTS: Of 100 procedures, 62 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies (LPD) and 36 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) were performed, along with 1 enucleation and 1 central pancreatectomy. Indication was malignancy in 70%. Conversion rate was 24,2% in LPD and 11% in LDP. Median operative time was 330 min (IQR 300-360) in LPD and 150 min (IQR 142.5-210) in LDP. Median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-487.5) in LPD and 150 mL (IQR 50-500) in LDP, transfusion rate was 22.6% and 8.3% respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 13 days (IQR 10-19.25) in LPD and 9 days (IQR 9-14) in LDP. R0 resection rate was 88.6% (62/70). Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) was 12%. Thirty-day mortality was 0%, 90-day mortality was 2%. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that LPR is a feasible and safe alternative to open pancreatic surgery. Safe implementation with a clear strategy is fundamental to gain experience and overcome the learning curve of this technically demanding procedures.