The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. RESULTS: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.

Perioperative interventions to reduce pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on interventions to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assimilate data from RCTs. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched systematically for RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce all grades of POPF or clinically relevant (CR) POPF after PD. Meta-analysis was undertaken for interventions investigated in multiple studies. A post hoc analysis of negative RCTs assessed whether these had appropriate statistical power. RESULTS: Among 22 interventions (7512 patients, 55 studies), 12 were assessed by multiple studies, and subjected to meta-analysis. Of these, external pancreatic duct drainage was the only intervention associated with reduced rates of both CR-POPF (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.80) and all-POPF (OR 0.42, 0.25 to 0.70). Ulinastatin was associated with reduced rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.24, 0.06 to 0.93). Invagination (versus duct-to-mucosa) pancreatojejunostomy was associated with reduced rates of all-POPF (OR 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90). Most negative RCTs were found to be underpowered, with post hoc power calculations indicating that interventions would need to reduce the POPF rate to 1 per cent or less in order to achieve 80 per cent power in 16 of 34 (all-POPF) and 19 of 25 (CR-POPF) studies respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports a role for several interventions to reduce POPF after PD. RCTs in this field were often relatively small and underpowered, especially those evaluating CR-POPF.

Can trainees safely perform pancreatoenteric anastomosis? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk-adjusted analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort. RESULTS: Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P = .45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P = .37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P = .05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P < .001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P = .020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P = .604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons. CONCLUSION: Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. METHODS: After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. RESULTS: A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR).

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.

Inguinal hernia repair protects testicular function: a prospective study of open and laparoscopic herniorraphy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency of open and laparoscopic herniorraphy the effect of the hernia and subsequent repair on testicular function is unknown. Our objective was to determine if there is an association between inguinal hernia and hernia repair on testicular function. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-seven men aged 18 to 70 years were enrolled in a prospective internally controlled cohort study. They underwent Doppler ultrasonography and serum testicular hormone analysis pre- and post- either open Lichtenstein's repair or laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty. These surrogates of testicular function were measured up to 6 months postrepair. RESULTS: Thirty-seven consecutive patients underwent either Lichtenstein (n = 17) or totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty (n = 20) hernia repair as per surgeon preference. Preoperatively there was a significant elevation in the sonographic resistive index (RI) in the affected (hernia) side compared with the normal side (0.601, 0.569; p < 0.001). This elevation in RI was reversed posthernia repair at a median followup of 6.1 months. Inguinal hernia or repair did not affect testicular volume. The choice of either Lichtenstein or totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty hernia did not significantly alter the testicular function. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with inguinal hernia have an elevated testicular vascular resistance, which is reversed after repair. The choice of laparoscopic or open herniorraphy did not affect reversal of this surrogate of testicular function.

Adenocarcinoma of the duodenum: importance of accurate lymph node staging and similarity in outcome to gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study examined prognostic discrimination by lymph node staging for duodenal adenocarcinoma and compared the nodal stage-specific survival with that associated with gastric antral adenocarcinoma. METHOD: Prospectively maintained databases from 1983 to 2000 were reviewed to identify 137 patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma and 545 patients with gastric antral adenocarcinoma at a single institution. RESULTS: R0 resection was performed for 72 patients with duodenal cancer. At least 15 lymph nodes were retrieved in 34 cases (47%). Lymph node metastasis (pN+) was detected in 31 patients (43%). With median follow-up of 36 months, the pN category was an independently significant prognostic factor (pN0, 5-year disease-specific survival of 83%, vs. pN+, 56%; P=.03). The survival difference between pN0 and pN+ was pronounced in patients with > or =15 nodes (100% vs. 47%, respectively; P=.01) but was lost in those with <15 nodes (75% vs. 64%; P=.5). For gastric antrum cancer, 331 patients had R0 resection, and > or =15 nodes were retrieved in 256 cases (77%). Lymph node metastasis was detected in 157 cases (47%). For patients with > or =15 nodes, 5-year survival with pN0 (87%) or pN+ (44%) was not significantly different from the corresponding categories for duodenal adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: For duodenal adenocarcinoma, examination of > or =15 regional lymph nodes improved prognostic discrimination by the pN category. With accurate nodal staging, pN0 was associated with excellent prognosis. With pN+, prognosis was similar to that for gastric antral adenocarcinoma.

Metastasis to the adrenal gland: the emerging role of laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether resection of clinically isolated metastasis to the adrenal gland improves survival. Also, the role of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for metastasis is controversial. This study aimed to (1) identify patients who are most likely to have prolonged survival after resection of adrenal metastasis and (2) compare oncological outcomes of LA and open adrenalectomy (OA). METHODS: A retrospective review of 41 patients, who underwent either OA or LA for metastasis to the adrenal gland during 1997-2002 at a single institution, was conducted. RESULTS: There were 20 women and 21 men, with a median age of 59 years. The most common disease was non-small-cell lung carcinoma (n = 23), followed by renal cell carcinoma (n = 6). With a median follow-up of 16 months, the overall five-year actuarial survival was 29% (median, 28 months). Four patients were actually alive at four years after adrenalectomy. Disease-free interval (DFI) > 6 months was the only significant predictor of improved survival. LA was performed for 11 patients. There was no difference in the incidence of positive resection-margins or survival between patients with OA or LA. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenalectomy for metastasis, with intent to prolong survival, should be offered to patients with favorable tumor biology, such as those with significant DFI. The oncological outcome from LA appears similar to that from OA.

The value of laparoscopy in the management of ampullary, duodenal, and distal bile duct tumors.

Laparoscopy identifies radiologically occult advanced disease in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The value of laparoscopy in the management of peri-ampullary tumors was determined. One hundred forty-four patients with radiologically resectable nonpancreatic adenocarcinoma, periampullary tumors were identified from a prospective database between August 1993 and December 2000. Criteria for laparoscopic unresectability included histologically proved peritoneal or hepatic metastases, distant nodal involvement, arterial involvement, and local extension outside the resection field. Median age at operation was 70 years (range 31 to 87 years) and 56% of the patients were men. An adequate laparoscopy was performed in 134 cases (93%). Laparoscopy identified 13 patients (10%) with unresectable disease. Of 121 patients with laparoscopic resectable disease, 111 (92%) went on to subsequent resection; CT correctly predicted resectability in 82%. Laparoscopy spared 36% of unresectable patients a nontherapeutic laparotomy. Patients with resectable disease were treated by pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 91, 76%), ampullectomy (n = 12, 10%), duodenal resection (n = 10, 9%), or bile duct excision (n = 6, 5%). The addition of diagnostic laparoscopy to dynamic CT scanning in this selected patient population identifies an additional 10% of patients with unresectable disease. We believe that laparoscopy should be used in a selective manner for preoperative staging of patients suspected of having nonpancreatic periampullary tumors.

Randomized clinical trials in pancreatic cancer.

The authors reviewed 59 prospective, randomized, controlled trials for pancreatic carcinoma that were published between 1977 and 2000. Of the 11 surgical trials, two each studied extent of resection (standard versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy) and lymphadenectomy (standard versus extended lymph node dissection), five trials compared different types of pancreaticenteric reconstruction, and one each evaluated the role of prophylactic gastrojejunostomy and chemical splanchnicectomy in the setting of advanced disease.