Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Prospective Snapshot Study (SPANDISPAN).

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care is a priority for health systems to obtain better care and reduce costs. One of the tools for measuring quality is benchmarking (BM). We presented a one-country prospective study of distal pancreatectomies (DP) and determined BM. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational snapshot study of DP carried out at Spanish HPB centers for a year (February 22-January 23). HPB centers were defined as high-volume if they performed > 10 DP per year. Inclusion criteria: any scheduled DP for any diagnosis and age > 18 years. The low-risk group was defined following the Durin et al. criteria and major complications as Clavien-Dindo ≥ III. RESULTS: 313 patients from 42 centers and 46.6% from high-volume centers were included. Median DP by center was 7 (IQR: 5-10), median age was 65 years (IQR: 55-74), and 53.4% were female. The surgical approach was minimally invasive (MIS) in 69.3%. Major complications were 21.1%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C rate was 20.1%, and 90-day mortality was 1.6%. One hundred and forty-three were low-risk group patients (43.8%). Compared with previous BM data, an increasing MIS rate and fewer hospital stay was obtained. CONCLUSION: We present the first determination of DP-BM in a prospective series, obtaining similar results to the previous ones, but our BM values include a shorter hospital stay and a higher percentage of MIS probably related to ERAS protocols and prospective data collection. BM is a multiparameter valuable tool for reporting outcomes, comparing centers, and identifying the points to improve surgical care.

Textbook outcomes in the liver-first approach for colorectal liver metastases: prospective multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a valuable tool for assessing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyse textbook-outcome rates in the prospective Spanish National Registry of the Liver-First Approach (RENACI Project) and the factors influencing textbook-outcome achievement. Additionally, a model for assessing a procedure-specific textbook outcome for the liver-first approach was proposed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective and multicentre database that included consecutive patients with colorectal cancers and synchronous liver metastases who underwent a liver-first approach between June 2019 and August 2020 was performed. Two types of textbook outcome were measured: classic textbook outcome and liver-first-approach-specific textbook outcome (which included negative margins, no perioperative transfusion, no postoperative major surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmissions, no mortality, and full treatment completion). The primary endpoint was textbook-outcome rate for a liver-first approach at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were included in the analysis. Classic and liver-first-approach-specific textbook-outcome rates were 71.8 per cent (107 patients) and 46 per cent (69 patients) respectively. Factors significantly associated with liver-first-approach-specific textbook-outcome achievement in the multivariable analysis were the number of metastases (OR 0.82 (95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.92); P = 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (OR 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.99 to 1.00); P = 0.007). Prolonged length of hospital stay (33 patients, 41 per cent), positive margins (31 patients, 39 per cent), perioperative transfusion (27 patients, 34 per cent), and no full treatment completion (18 patients, 23 per cent) were the items that most frequently prevented liver-first-approach-specific textbook-outcome achievement. CONCLUSION: Liver-first-approach-specific textbook outcome is a promising tool for measuring the quality of care when using the liver-first approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases.

Early postoperative complications after gastric bypass revisional surgery in patients with previous sleeve gastrectomy versus primary gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric surgery (RS) is indicated if there is weight regain or insufficient weight loss, no improvement or reappearance of co-morbidities, or previous bariatric surgery complications. It has been associated with higher postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early postoperative complications (<30 d) of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass RS (RYGB-RS) after primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG-1) compared with primary RYGB (RYGB-1) at a bariatric surgery referral center. SETTING: Department of General and Digestive Surgery of General Universitary Hospital of Alicante, Spain. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comparing RYGB-RS after SG-1 and RYGB-1 between January 2008 and March 2021. Postoperative complications, hospital stay, mortality, and readmissions were analyzed. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-eight RYGB surgeries (48 RYGB-RS, 580 RYGB-1) were studied. The mean age of patients undergoing RYGB-RS was 50 years, compared with 46 years in the RYGB-1 group (P = .017). Mean initial body mass index was 44.2 kg/m2 (RYGB-RS) versus 47.6 kg/m2 (RYGB-1; P = .004). Cardiovascular risk factors were higher in the RYGB-1 group (P < .05). Indications for RS were weight regain or insufficient weight loss (72.9%), weight regain or insufficient weight loss plus gastroesophageal reflux disease (14.6%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (12.5%). There were no differences in the frequency of complications (RYGB-RS 22.9% vs RYGB-1 20.5%) or in their severity (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIa; RYGB-RS 10.4% vs RYGB-1 6.4%; P > .05). There were no differences in emergency room visits (RYGB-RS at 12.5% vs RYGB-1 at 14.9%) or in readmissions (RYGB-RS at 12.5% vs RYGB-1 at 9.4%). CONCLUSION: No differences were observed between primary RYGB and revisional RYGB in early morbidity, mortality, emergencies, or readmissions. Revisional bariatric surgery is a safe procedure at referral centers and must be done by expert hands.

Fast-Track Liver Transplantation: Six-year Prospective Cohort Study with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been shown to facilitate discharge, decrease length of stay, improve outcomes and reduce costs. We used this concept to design a comprehensive fast-track pathway (OR-to-discharge) before starting our liver transplant activity and then applied this protocol prospectively to every patient undergoing liver transplantation at our institution, monitoring the results periodically. We now report our first six years results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of all the liver transplants performed at our institution for the first six years. Balanced general anesthesia, fluid restriction, thromboelastometry, inferior vena cava preservation and temporary portocaval shunt were strategies common to all cases. Standard immunosuppression administered included steroids, tacrolimus (delayed in the setting of renal impairment, with basiliximab induction added) and mycophenolate mofetil. Tacrolimus dosing was adjusted using a Bayesian estimation methodology. Oral intake and ambulation were started early. RESULTS: A total of 240 transplants were performed in 236 patients (191♂/45♀) over 74 months, mean age 56.3±9.6 years, raw MELD score 15.5±7.7. Predominant etiologies were alcohol (n = 136) and HCV (n = 82), with hepatocellular carcinoma present in 129 (54.7%). Nine patients received combined liver and kidney transplants. The mean operating time was 315±64 min with cold ischemia times of 279±88 min. Thirty-one patients (13.1%) were transfused in the OR (2.4±1.2 units of PRBC). Extubation was immediate (< 30 min) in all but four patients. Median ICU length of stay was 12.7 hours, and median post-transplant hospital stay was 4 days (2-76) with 30 patients (13.8%) going home by day 2, 87 (39.9%) by day 3, and 133 (61%) by day 4, defining our fast-track group. Thirty-day-readmission rate (34.9%) was significantly lower (28.6% vs. 44.7% p=0.015) in the fast-track group. Patient survival was 86.8% at 1 year and 78.6% at five years. CONCLUSION: Fast-Tracking of Liver Transplant patients is feasible and can be applied as the standard of care.