Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively. BACKGROUND: POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet. METHODS: Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drain strategy after distal pancreatectomy: A multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: /Objectives Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Traditionally, surgical drains are placed routinely after DP, but some question its efficacy and postulate that the use of drains may convert a self-limiting postoperative collection into a POPF. This study aimed to compare outcomes between three institutions with varying drainage strategies. METHODS: The study is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of intraoperative prophylactic drain placement during DP (2010-2019). The primary outcome is major morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to obtain comparable groups. RESULTS: Overall, 963 patients after DP were included. One center did not place a surgical drain routinely, but decided to place a drain when unsatisfactory pancreatic closure occurred. Prophylactic abdominal drains were placed in 805 patients (84%) of which 74 could be matched to 74 patients without a drain. The rate of major morbidity (8% vs 19%, p = 0.054) and radiological interventions (5% vs 12%, p = 0.147) were non-significantly lower in the no-drain group as compared to the prophylactic drain group, respectively. The rates of POPF (4% vs 16%, p = 0.014) were lower in the no-drain group. CONCLUSION: In this international retrospective multicenter study, a selective no-drain strategy after DP was not associated with higher rates major morbidity or radiological interventions as compared to routine prophylactic abdominal drainage. Although the rate of POPF was lower in the no-drain group, randomized trials should confirm the safety and outcome of a no-drain strategy after DP.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with conflicting results. An IPDMA may give more insight into the differences between LPD and OPD, and could identify high-risk subgroups. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases (October 2019). Out of 1410 studies, three randomized trials were identified. Primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III). Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk subgroups including patients with BMI of ≥25 kg/m2, pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, and malignancy. RESULTS: Data from 224 patients were collected. After LPD, major complications occurred in 33/114 (29%) patients compared to 34/110 (31%) patients after OPD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.4, P = 0.257). No differences were seen for major complications and 90-day mortality LPD 8 (7%) vs OPD 4 (4%) (adjusted OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-1.3, P = 0.080). With LPD, operative time was longer (420 vs 318 min, p < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean difference -6.97 days). Outcomes remained stable in the high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSION: LPD did not reduce the rate of major postoperative complications as compared to OPD. LPD increased operative time and shortened hospital stay with 7 days.

Radiofrequency versus microwave ablation for intraoperative treatment of colorectal liver metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and the newer technique of microwave ablation (MWA) can both be of additional value in parenchyma preserving surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MWA is less influenced by the heat-sink effect of surrounding vessels and can generate more heat in less time but RFA is still widely used. True comparing studies are scarce. METHODS: This single centre retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent ultrasound guided intraoperative ablation as a part of the surgical treatment of CRLM between 2013 and 2018. In September 2015, MWA was substituted for RFA. Outcomes included unsuccessful ablation rates at 1-year postoperative, 30-days major complication rates, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Logistic regression models were used for univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of unsuccessful ablation. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent RFA of 98 lesions (median 2) and 79 patients underwent MWA of 193 lesions (median 2). The median diameter of the ablated lesions was 9 mm for both RFA and MWA. Unsuccessful ablation was observed in 7 metastases (7.1%) after RFA and 14 metastases (7.3%) after MWA (p = 1.000). Complications requiring re-intervention were observed after 8 procedures, 2 complications in the RFA group (4.9%) versus 6 complications in the MWA group (7.6%, p = 0.714), of which 6 were liver-related. Ninety-day mortality did not occur. Ablation technique was not associated with unsuccessful ablations. CRLM size was associated with unsuccessful ablation in the per lesion analysis (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative RFA and MWA were equally effective for treatment of small CRLM.

The role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in retroperitoneal sarcomas-A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The role of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18 F-FDG PET/CT) in the evaluation of retroperitoneal sarcomas is poorly defined. We evaluated the correlation of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) with pathologic tumor grade in the surgical specimen of primary retroperitoneal dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) and leiomyosarcoma (LMS). METHODS: Patients with the above histological subtypes in three participating institutions with preoperative 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan and histopathological specimen available for review were included. The association between SUVmax and pathological grade was assessed. Correlation between SUVmax and relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were also studied. RESULTS: Of the total 58 patients, final pathological subtype was DDLPS in 44 (75.9%) patients and LMS in 14 (24.1%) patients. The mean SUVmax was 8.7 with a median 7.1 (range, 2.2-33.9). The tumors were graded I, II, III in 6 (10.3%), 35 (60.3%), and 17 (29.3%) patients, respectively. There was an association of higher histological grade with higher SUVmax (rs = 0.40, p = .002). Increasing SUVmax was associated with worse RFS (p = .003) and OS (p = .003). CONCLUSION: There is a correlation between SUVmax and pathologic tumor grade; increasing SUVmax was associated with worse OS and RFS, providing a preoperative noninvasive surrogate marker of tumor grade and biological behavior.

Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey.

BACKGROUND: The recent Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) advise all centers that perform MIPS to participate in multicenter registries to safeguard optimal outcomes and patient safety. During the design phase of a pan-European registry on MIPS, the European consortium of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) sought input from European HPB surgeons. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire with 23 questions on MIPS practice was sent to all member centers of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and E-MIPS. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were obtained from 98 centers in 23 countries, of which 75 (76.5%) were academic centers. Centers had a median annual pancreatoduodenectomy volume of 45. The most-performed MIPS procedure was laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (93.9% of centers). Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 49% of all centers. Some 25 centers already participated in an ongoing national registry, and were willing to share their data with the European registry on MIPS. The most mentioned (45.4%) maximum time for processing one patient's data into the registry was 10-15 min. CONCLUSION: This European survey showed considerable support for the European registry on MIPS.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.

Laparoscopic Radical Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Surgical Strategy and Technique Video.

Radical resection margins, resection of Gerota's (perirenal) fascia, and adequate lymph node dissection are crucial for an adequate oncological resection of left-sided pancreatic cancer. Several surgical techniques have been described in recent years, but few were specifically designed for minimally invasive approaches. This study describes and demonstrates a standardized and reproducible technique for an adequate oncological resection of pancreatic cancer: laparoscopic radical left pancreatectomy (LRLP). A 61-year-old woman presented with an incidental finding of a 3 cm mass in the left pancreas suspect for malignancy. Imaging did not reveal distant metastases, central vascular involvement, or morbid obesity, hence the patient was suitable for LRLP. This study describes the main steps of LRLP for pancreatic cancer. First, the lesser sac is opened by transecting the gastrocolic ligament. The splenic flexure of the colon is mobilized and the inferior border of the pancreas including Gerota's fascia is dissected down to the inferior border of the spleen. The pancreas is tunneled and hung, including Gerota's fascia with a vessel loop. At the pancreatic neck, a tunnel is created between the pancreas and the portal vein, likewise a vessel loop is passed. The pancreas is then transected using the graded compression technique with an endostapler. Both the splenic vein and artery are transected before completing the resection. The entire specimen is extracted in a retrieval bag via a small Pfannenstiel incision. Duration of the surgery was 210 min with 250 mL blood loss. Pathology revealed a R0-resection (>1 mm) of a well-to-moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma originating from an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. A total of 15 tumor-negative lymph nodes were resected. This is a detailed description of LRLP for left-sided pancreatic cancer as is currently being used within the international, multicenter randomized DIPLOMA (Distal Pancreatectomy Minimally Invasive or Open for PDAC) trial.

DIPLOMA Approach for Standardized Pathology Assessment of Distal Pancreatectomy Specimens.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignant cancers. A minority (20%) of PDACs are found in the pancreatic body and tail. Accurate pathology assessment of the pancreatic specimen is essential for providing prognostic information and it may guide further treatment strategies. The recent 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) staging system for pancreatic tumors has incorporated significant changes to tumor (pT) stage, which is predominantly based on tumor size. This change emphasizes the importance of careful block selection. Owing to the greater prevalence of tumors in the head of the pancreas, efforts are made to standardize the assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. However, consensus regarding the macroscopic assessment of distal (i.e., left) pancreatectomy specimens is lacking. The DIPLOMA approach includes the standardized measurement of pancreas and other resected organs, inking of relevant surgical margins and anatomical surfaces without removing covering layers of fat, measurement of tumor size (for T-stage), together with assessment of splenic vessel involvement (and other organs if present). All relevant margins are assessed, and relevant blocks are selected to confirm these parameters microscopically. The current protocol describes a standardized approach to the macroscopic assessment of distal pancreatectomy specimens. This approach was developed during several meetings with pathologists and surgeons during the preparation phase for an international multicenter trial (DIPLOMA, ISRCTN44897265), which focuses on radicality of distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This standardized approach can be instrumental in the design of studies and will uniform reporting on the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy. The described technique is used in the DIPLOMA trial for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma but may also be useful for other indications.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

The Incidence of Arthroplasty After Initial Arthroscopy for Trapeziometacarpal Arthrosis.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear how many patients undergo secondary surgery after initial arthroscopy for trapeziometacarpal (TMC) arthrosis. We studied the factors related to secondary TMC arthroplasty after TMC arthroscopy. We also examined secondary questions of: (1) what percentage of patients underwent secondary TMC arthroplasty; and (2) how much time elapsed from initial arthroscopy to arthroplasty. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included all adult patients who were treated with arthroscopy of the TMC joint at 2 level I hospitals and affiliates. Factors were assessed for their independent association with secondary TMC arthroplasty using bivariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Fourteen of 84 (17%) thumbs underwent secondary TMC arthroplasty an average of 11 months after the initial arthroscopy. Synovectomy alone and smoking tobacco were independently associated with secondary TMC arthroplasty when compared with arthroscopic (partial) trapeziectomy with additional tendon interposition or allograft. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that 1 in 6 thumbs underwent secondary TMC arthroplasty, an average of 11 months after the initial arthroscopy. Coupling arthroscopy with partial trapeziectomy, interposition, or extension osteotomy may be a preferable strategy to isolated synovectomy. In addition, smoking tobacco is associated with inferior outcomes regardless of surgical procedure.

Pain anxiety differentially mediates the association of pain intensity with function depending on level of intolerance of uncertainty.

Uncertainty about symptom duration, cause, prognosis and treatment is common in patients who seek medical care, yet individual ability to manage this uncertainty varies. Intolerance of uncertainty is considered an important factor in the etiology and persistence of negative emotions- in particular, depression and anxiety. We explored the contribution of intolerance of uncertainty to anxiety due to pain and physical function in patients seeking care at an orthopedic medical practice. Participants (N = 105, mean age of 51 ± 17, 63% male) were administered PROMIS Physical Function v1.2 Upper Extremity CAT, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale-short form (PASS-20), and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-short version (IUS-12). Results showed that the mediating role of pain anxiety is contingent upon the level of intolerance of uncertainty. Specifically, a minimum level of intolerance of uncertainty is required for the development of pain anxiety and its effect on function, and as intolerance of uncertainty rises from low to medium to high levels, the effect of pain on function goes from being independent of the anxiety to being more and more carried by and through anxiety about pain. These findings support the contention that intolerance of uncertainty plays a crucial role in the relationship between pain, pain anxiety, and physical function. Intolerance of uncertainty appears to be a trans-diagnostic target for coping skills training.