Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in people with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a widely used procedure for management of uncontrolled upper gastrointestinal bleeding and refractory ascites in people with liver cirrhosis. However, nearly half of the people experience shunt dysfunction and recurrent symptoms within one year of the procedure. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents are assumed to decrease shunt dysfunction by approximately 20% to 30%. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents versus bare stents in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) for managing people with liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents in TIPS for treatment of people with liver cirrhosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. procedure-related complications, and 3. health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 4. upper gastrointestinal bleeding, 5. recurrence of ascites, 6. hepatic encephalopathy, 7. kidney failure, 8. early thrombosis, 9. non-serious adverse events, and 10. shunt dysfunction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. We analysed outcome data at the maximum follow-up, except for the 'early thrombosis' outcome for which it was within 12 weeks after the TIPS procedure. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials with 565 randomised participants (age range: 18 to 75 years; male range: 63.6% to 75.0%). A total of 527 participants provided data for analyses because of losses to follow-up. Two trials were conducted in China; one in France; and one in France, Spain, and Canada. Participants were classified with cirrhosis Child-Pugh class A, B, or C, and for some, the class was not reported. We used intention-to-treat principle (four trials) and per-protocol analysis (one trial) to meta-analyse the data. One trial compared ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of the same diameter and three trials compared ePTFE-covered stents versus stents of different diameters. ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of the same diameter One trial with 258 participants compared 8 mm covered stent versus 8 mm bare stent. Mortality in the covered stent group is possibly lower than in the bare stent group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84), recurrence of ascites (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87), and shunt dysfunction (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.61) occurred more often in the bare stent group than in the covered stent group (all low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in hepatic encephalopathy between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.61; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report data on procedure-related complications, health-related quality of life, early thrombosis, and segmental liver ischaemia (a non-serious adverse event). ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different stent diameters Three trials compared ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different diameters (10.5 (standard deviation (SD) 0.9) mm versus 11.7 (SD 0.8) mm; 8 mm versus 10 mm; and one trial used 10-mm stents that could be dilated from 8 mm to 10 mm). There was no evidence of a difference between the ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents groups in mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 3 trials, 269 participants), procedure-related complications (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.57; 1 trial, 80 participants), upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.38; 3 trials, 269 participants), hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 3 trials, 269 participants), and kidney failure (RR 7.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 143.92; 1 trial, 121 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence). Recurrence of ascites (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.85; 3 trials, 269 participants; low-certainty evidence), shunt dysfunction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; 3 trials, 269 participants; low-certainty evidence), and early thrombosis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 261 participants; very low-certainty evidence) occurred more often in the bare stents group. There was no evidence of a difference in segmental liver ischaemia (RR 5.25, 95% CI 0.26 to 106.01; 1 trial, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial presented data on health-related quality of life. Funding One trial did not clearly report funding sources. The remaining three trials declared that they had no funding with vested interests. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the small number of trials with insufficient sample size and events, and study limitations, we assessed the overall certainty of evidence in the predefined outcomes as low or very low. Therefore, we are uncertain which of the two interventions (ePTFE-covered stents or bare stents of the same diameter and ePTFE-covered stents versus bare stents of different stent diameters) is effective for the evaluated outcomes. None of the four trials reported data on health-related quality of life, and data on complications were either missing or rarely reported. We lack high-quality trials to evaluate the role of ePTFE-covered stents for TIPS for managing people with liver cirrhosis.

Walthard cyst of spermatic cord in the right inguinal hernia.

There are isolated case reports of Walthard cells in paratesticular structures although these benign epithelial cells are commonly found in relation to fallopian tubes. This is a second case report of cystic Walthard rest presented in an elderly man in right inguinal hernia.

Effect of the learning curve on survival after laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a highly demanding procedure with great variability. Previously published randomized trials have proven oncological safety of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) as compared to open surgery. However, these were started after the learning curve (LC) was established. This leaves the question of whether the LC of LLR in the early laparoscopic era has affected the survival of patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). METHODS: All consecutive LLRs performed by a single surgeon between 2000 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart for conversion rate and the log regression analysis of the blood loss identified two phases in the LC. This was then applied to patients with CRLM, and the two subgroups were compared for recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The analysis was repeated with propensity score-matched (PSM) groups. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were included in the LC analysis, which identified two distinct phases, the early (EP; 68 patients) and the late (LP; 218 patients) phases. The LC was applied to 192 patients with colorectal liver metastasis (EPc, 45 patients; LPc, 147 patients). For patients with CRLM, R0 resection was achieved in 93 per cent: 100 per cent in the EPc group and 90 per cent in the LPc group (P = 0.026). Median OS and RFS were 60 and 16 months, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS were 51 per cent and 32.7 per cent, respectively. OS (hazard ratio (h.r.) 0.78, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.51 to 1.2; P = 0.286) and RFS (h.r. 0.94, 95 per cent c.i. 0.64 to 1.37; P = 0.760) were not compromised by the learning curve. The results were replicated after PSM. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the development of a laparoscopic liver resection programme can be achieved without adverse effects on the long-term survival of patients with CRLM.

Medium-term mortality after hip fractures and COVID-19: A prospective multi-centre UK study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused 1.4 million deaths globally and is associated with a 3-4 times increase in 30-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture with concurrent COVID-19 infection. Typically, death from COVID-19 infection occurs between 15 and 22 days after the onset of symptoms, but this period can extend up to 8 weeks. This study aimed to assess the impact of concurrent COVID-19 infection on 120-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture. METHODS: A multi-centre prospective study across 10 hospitals treating 8% of the annual burden of hip fractures in England between 1st March and 30th April, 2020 was performed. Patients whose surgical treatment was payable through the National Health Service Best Practice Tariff mechanism for "fragility hip fractures" were included in the study. Patients' 120-day mortality was assessed relative to their peri-operative COVID-19 status. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27. RESULTS: A total of 746 patients were included in this study, of which 87 (11.7%) were COVID-19 positive. Mortality rates at 30- and 120-day were significantly higher for COVID-19 positive patients relative to COVID-19 negative patients (p < 0.001). However, mortality rates between 31 and 120-day were not significantly different (p = 0.107), 16.1% and 9.4% respectively for COVID-19 positive and negative patients, odds ratio 1.855 (95% CI 0.865-3.978). CONCLUSION: Hip fracture patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection, provided that they are alive at day-31 after injury, have no significant difference in 120-day mortality. Despite the growing awareness and concern of "long-COVID" and its widespread prevalence, this does not appear to increase medium-term mortality rates after a hip fracture.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in acute pancreatitis increases disease severity and 30-day mortality: COVID PAN collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: There is emerging evidence that the pancreas may be a target organ of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: A prospective international multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients admitted with AP during the current pandemic was undertaken. Primary outcome measure was severity of AP. Secondary outcome measures were aetiology of AP, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of hospital stay, local complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), persistent organ failure and 30-day mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: 1777 patients with AP were included during the study period from 1 March to 23 July 2020. 149 patients (8.3%) had concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were older male patients and more likely to develop severe AP and ARDS (p<0.001). Unadjusted analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with AP were more likely to require ICU admission (OR 5.21, p<0.001), local complications (OR 2.91, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 7.32, p<0.001), prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.89, p<0.001) and a higher 30-day mortality (OR 6.56, p<0.001). Adjusted analysis showed length of stay (OR 1.32, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 2.77, p<0.003) and 30-day mortality (OR 2.41, p<0.04) were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 co-infection. CONCLUSION: Patients with AP and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of severe AP, worse clinical outcomes, prolonged length of hospital stay and high 30-day mortality.

Therapeutic Serendipity Secondary to Abdominal Drain in Pancreatic Trauma.

A case of blunt pancreatic trauma during a soccer match is presented in a young adult female. Following diagnosis, a laparotomy was performed and multiple abdominal drains placed. A controlled pancreatic fistula occurred, which was treated conservatively. Spontaneous drain migration into the duodenum created a therapeutic iatrogenic internal fistula.

Postoperative Bleeding After Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Achilles' Heel?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is technically demanding, and its impact on postoperative outcomes remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term outcomes between laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in order to assess the safety of LPD. METHODS: From 2002 to 2014, all consecutive patients undergoing LPD or OPD at two tertiary centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, pathological diagnosis, and pancreatic texture. Results for the two groups were compared for postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-five LPD were performed and compared to 290 OPD. In the whole population, postoperative pancreatic fistula (PF) was higher in the LPD group, but the proportion of ampullary adénocarcinoma (25 vs. 10%, p = 0.004) and soft pancreatic parenchyma (52 vs. 38%, p = 0.001) were higher in the LDP group. After matching (n = 65), LPD was associated with longer operative time (429 vs. 328 min, p < 0.001) and lower blood loss (370 vs. 515 mL, p = 0.047). The PF rate and its severity were similar (33 vs. 27%, p = 0.439, p = 0.083) in the two groups. However, both complications (78 vs. 71%, p = 0.030) and major complications (40 vs. 23%, p = 0.033) were more frequent in the LPD group. LPD patients experience more postoperative bleeding (21 vs. 14%, p = 0.025) compared to their open counterparts. In multivariate analysis, perioperative transfusion (OR = 5 IC 95% (1.5-16), p = 0.008), soft pancreas (OR = 2.5 IC 95% (1.4-4.6), p = 0.001), and ampullary adenocarcinoma (OR = 2.6 IC 95% (1.2-5.6), p = 0.015) were independent risks factors of major complications. CONCLUSION: Despite lower blood loss and lower intraoperative transfusion, LPD leads to higher rate of postoperative complications with postoperative bleeding in particular.

Consequences of metabolic syndrome on postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

AIM: To analyze immediate postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy regarding metabolic syndrome. METHODS: In two academic centers, postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2002 to 2014 were prospectively recorded. Patients presenting with metabolic syndrome [defined as at least three criteria among overweight (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m²), diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia] were compared to patients without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: Among 270 consecutive patients, 29 (11%) presented with metabolic syndrome. In univariable analysis, patients with metabolic syndrome were significantly older (69.4 years vs 62.5 years, P = 0.003) and presented more frequently with soft pancreas (72% vs 22%, P = 0.0001). In-hospital morbidity (83% vs 71%) and mortality (7% vs 6%) did not differ in the two groups so as pancreatic fistula rate (45% vs 30%, P = 0.079) and severity of pancreatic fistula (P = 0.257). In multivariable analysis, soft pancreas texture (P = 0.001), pancreatic duct diameter < 3 mm (P = 0.025) and BMI > 30 kg/m² (P = 0.041) were identified as independent risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION: In spite of logical reasoning and appropriate methodology, present series suggests that metabolic syndrome does not jeopardize postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Therefore, definition of metabolic syndrome seems to be inappropriate and fatty pancreas needs to be assessed with an international consensual histopathological classification.

Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials. SOURCE OF FUNDING: seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastric Resection for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors >5 cm: A Size-Matched and Location-Matched Comparison.

This study compared robotic (RR) and laparoscopic resection (LR) for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the stomach >5 cm. Twelve consecutive patients who underwent RR from 2012 to 2015 were matched for tumor size and location with 24 patients who underwent LR from 2000 to 2012. The median tumor size was 7.1 cm (range, 5.5 to 11.5). GISTs were resected by wedge resection (91.7%) or distal gastrectomy. The median RR operative time was longer than that of LR (162.5 vs. 130 min, respectively; P=0.004). Only 1 LR patient required conversion. The time to flatus and hospital stay were similar between groups. Overall, 3 patients developed minor postoperative complications that were medically treated. Mortality was nil. All resections were R0. No difference was observed in the incidence of recurrence. RR was significantly more expensive (+21.6%) than LR. RR appears to be safe and feasible for GISTs>5 cm, but is associated with longer operative times and greater costs.

Carvedilol for portal hypertension in cirrhosis: systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. OUTCOME MEASURE: We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events). RESULTS: 12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6 months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14 days follow-up in the carvedilol group. CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020542.

Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.

Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: 'Fast-track surgery' or 'enhanced recovery protocol' or 'fast-track rehabilitation', incorporating one or more elements of preoperative education, pain relief, early mobilisation, enteral nutrition and growth factors, may improve health-related quality of life and reduce length of hospital stay and costs. The role of enhanced recovery protocols in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of enhanced recovery protocols compared with standard care (or usual practice) in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5, based on available case analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and nine studies provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1014 participants were randomly assigned to the enhanced recovery protocol (499 participants) or standard care (515 participants) in the nine RCTs. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants with high performance status undergoing different upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. Eight trials incorporated more than one element of the enhanced recovery protocol. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term health-related quality of life(three months to one year), time to return to normal activity, or time to return to work. The difference between the enhanced recovery protocol and standard care were imprecise for short-term mortality (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/425 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 1/443 (0.2%); seven trials; 868 participants; RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.44 to 17.73; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/157 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 0/184 (0.0%); two trials; 341 participants; RR 5.57; 95% CI 0.68 to 45.89; very low quality evidence), number of serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 34/421 (8 per 100 participants); standard care: 46/438 (11 per 100 participants); seven trials; 859 participants; rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; very low quality evidence), health-related quality of life (four trials; 373 participants; SMD 0.29; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.62; very low quality evidence) and hospital readmissions (enhanced recovery protocol: 14/355 (adjusted proportion = 3.3%); standard care: 9/378 (2.4%); seven trials; 733 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.87; very low quality evidence). The enhanced recovery protocol group had a lower proportion of people with mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 31/254 (adjusted proportion = 10.9%); standard care: 51/271 (18.8%); four trials; 525 participants; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85; low quality evidence), fewer number of mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 69/499 (13 per 100 participants); standard care: 128/515 (25 per 100 participants); nine trials; 1014 participants; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; low quality evidence), shorter length of hospital stay (nine trials; 1014 participants; MD -2.19 days; 95% CI -2.53 to -1.85; low quality evidence) and lower costs (four trials; 282 participants; MD USD -6300; 95% CI -8400 to -4200; low quality evidence) than standard care group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, enhanced recovery protocols may reduce length of hospital stay and costs (primarily because of reduction in hospital stay) in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. However, the validity of the results is uncertain because of the risk of bias in the trials and the way the outcomes were measured. Future RCTs should be conducted with low risk of bias, and measure clinically important outcomes for including the three months to one year period.

Incidence, risk factors and consequences of bile leakage following laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Bile leakage (BL) remains a common cause of major morbidity after open major liver resection but has only been poorly described in patients undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH). The present study aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of BL following LMH. METHODS: All 223 patients undergoing LMH between 2000 and 2013 at two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively analysed. BL was defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery, and its incidence and consequences were assessed. Risk factors for BL were determined on multivariate analysis. RESULTS: BL occurred in 30 (13.5 %) patients, and its incidence remained stable over time (p = 0.200). BL was diagnosed following the presence of bile into the abdominal drain in 14 (46.7 %) patients and after drainage of symptomatic abdominal collections in 16 (53.3 %) patients without intra-operative drain placement. Grade A, B and C BL occurred in 3 (10.0 %), 23 (76.6 %) and 4 (13.4 %) cases, respectively. Interventional procedures for BL included endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, percutaneous and surgical drainage in 10 (33.3 %), 23 (76.7 %) and 4 (13.3 %) patients, respectively. BL was associated with significantly increased rates of symptomatic pleural effusion (30.0 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.006), multiorgan failure (13.3 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.022), postoperative death (10.0 vs. 1.6 %, p = 0.008) and prolonged hospital stay (18 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BMI > 28 kg/m(2) (OR 2.439, 95 % CI 1.878-2.771, p = 0.036), history of hepatectomy (OR 1.675, 95 % CI 1.256-2.035, p = 0.044) and biliary reconstruction (OR 1.975, 95 % CI 1.452-2.371, p = 0.039) were significantly associated with increased risk of BL. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After LMH, BL occurred in 13.5 % of the patients and was associated with significant morbidity. Patients with one or several risk factors for BL should benefit intra-operative drain placement.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effect of Gastric Bypass Surgery on Plasma Lipid Levels.

BACKGROUND: Obesity-related dyslipidaemia comprises hypercholesterolaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, low HDL-cholesterol and normal to raised LDL-cholesterol levels. 40% of morbidly obese surgical patients have dyslipidaemia. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery has many beneficial metabolic effects, but the full impact on plasma lipids has not been clearly defined. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases (Ovid; Medline; PubMed; Embase) between 1960 and March 2012 was performed using search terms including the following: obesity surgery, bariatric surgery, gastric bypass, cholesterol, lipids, triglycerides and non-esterified fatty acids. A total of 2442 manuscripts were screened. Papers with paired plasma lipid levels around RYGB surgery were included. Exclusions included the following: editorials, dual publications, n < 10, resulting in 75 papers of relevance. A meta-analysis was performed of the effect of RYGB surgery upon plasma lipids at different time points up to 4 years following surgery, using a random effects model. RESULTS: Paired data were available for 7815 subjects around RYGB surgery for morbid obesity with a baseline BMI 48 kg/m(2) (n = 2331). There was a reduction in plasma total cholesterol and LDL-C from 1 month up to 4 years post-RYGB (p < 0.00001, p < 0.00001). Following RYGB, HDL-C increased from 1 year onwards (p < 0.00001), and triglyceride levels were reduced postoperatively from 3 months up to 4 years (p < 0.00001). NEFA levels were increased at 1 month postoperatively (p = 0.003), but from 3 months onwards did not differ from preoperative levels (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: RYGB surgery reverses the dyslipidaemia of obesity. These findings support the use of RYGB in the management of high cardiovascular risk lipid profiles in morbid obesity.

Changes in Bile Acid Profile After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy are Associated with Improvements in Metabolic Profile and Fatty Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Bile acids (BA) modulate lipid and glucose metabolism in a feedback loop through production of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 19 in the terminal ileum. Changes in BA after bariatric surgery may lead to improvements in the metabolic syndrome, including fatty liver disease. This study investigated the relationship between BA and metabolic and inflammatory profiles after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). METHODS: Patients undergoing LSG had fasting blood samples taken pre-operatively and 6 months post-surgery. Liver injury was measured using cytokeratin (CK) 18 fragments. BA were measured using liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry. FGF-19 was measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: The study included 18 patients (12 females), with mean age 46.3 years (SEM ± 2.9) and BMI 60.1 kg/m(2) (±2.6). After 6 months, patients lost 39.8 kg (±3.1; p < 0.001). Fourteen patients (78 %) had steatosis. FGF-19 increased from median 128.1 (IQR 89.4-210.1) to 177.1 (121.8-288.9, p = 0.045) at 6 months. Although total BA did not change, primary glycine- and taurine-conjugated BA, cholic acid decreased, and secondary BA, glycine-conjugated urodeoxycholic acid increased over the study period. These changes are associated with reduction in insulin resistance, pro-inflammatory cytokines and CK-18 levels. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of individual BA is altered after LSG. These changes occur in the presence of reductions in inflammatory cytokines and markers of liver injury. This study supports evidence from recent animal models that LSG may have an effect on fatty liver through changes in BA metabolism.

The Effect of Intraoperative N-Acetylcysteine on Hepatocellular Injury During Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery. A Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pneumoperitoneum and intraoperative retraction of the left lobe of the liver leads to hepatocellular injury during laparoscopic gastric surgery. Fatty livers are more susceptible to ischaemic insults. This trial investigated whether the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) reduced liver injury during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). METHODS: Patients undergoing LSG were randomised (single blinded) to receive intraoperative NAC infusion or standard anaesthetic treatment. Blood samples were taken before and after surgery (days 0 to 4). Primary endpoints included serum aminotransferases. Secondary measures were C-reactive protein, weight cell count (WCC), cytokines (interleukin 6 and 10) and cytokeratin-18 as markers of apoptosis. Intraoperative liver biopsy samples were assessed using a locally developed injury score. RESULTS: Twenty patients (14 females, mean age 44.5 (SEM ± 2.9) years, mean BMI 60.8 (SEM ± 2.4) kg/m(2)) were recruited (NAC n = 10, control n = 10). The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis. Baseline liver function was similar. The peak rise in liver enzymes was on day 1, but levels were not significantly different between the groups. Rates of complications and length of stay were not significantly different. Secondary outcome measures, including white cell count (WCC), cytokines and cytokeratin (CK)-18 fragments, were not different between groups. Liver injury scores did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: NAC did not reduce intraoperative liver injury in this small number of patients. The heterogenous nature of the study population, with differences in co-morbidities, body mass index and intraabdominal anatomy, leads to a varied post-operative inflammatory response. Significant hepatocyte injury occurs through both necrosis and apoptosis.

Liver surgery in the multidisciplinary management of gastrointestinal stromal tumour.

BACKGROUND: After the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the role of surgical resection in treating liver metastasis from gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is unclear. In this study, we evaluated the outcome of patients treated with TKIs followed by surgery for metastatic GIST. METHODS: Eleven patients who underwent liver resection after downsizing TKIs therapy for metastatic GIST from 2006 until 2010 were reviewed. RESULTS: One and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 80.8% and 70.7%. All patients with an initially resectable tumour were still alive without recurrence. Patients operated on clinical response had a better outcome (1-year and 2-year OS rate of 100%) than those operated on disease progression (1-year and 2-year OS rates of 60% and 40%; P = 0.043). No deaths were observed among patients who achieved an R0 resection (R0 versus R1/R2, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: R0 resection and clinical response to TKI are predictors of survival. Surgical resection should be performed as soon as feasible in responder patients. In poor responders, surgery may not add any survival benefit, except in localized progressive disease. In resectable metastatic liver disease, preoperative TKIs or upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy could be considered. Larger studies are needed to determine the optimum approach in patients with metastatic GIST.

Prognostic factors for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours: are they the same in the multidisciplinary treatment era?

PURPOSE: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumour of the gastrointestinal tract. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has lead to increasing use of combination of medical and surgical therapy. The aim of this study was to look at outcomes from a series of surgically treated GISTs and determine prognostic factors in the context of multimodal therapy. METHODS: We analysed 104 single surgeon's patients with GIST. End points of the study were disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS) and post-operative complications. RESULTS: Three- and 5-year DSS rates were 96.7 and 94.6 %. On univariate analysis, clear resection margins were predictive of DSS. Patients with R2 resection had a worse prognosis (3-year DSS rate of 83.3 %; 5-year DSS rate of 62.5 %) compared to patients with R0 (3-year DSS rate of 98 %; 5-year DSS rate of 98 %) or R1 resection (3-year DSS rate of 100 %; 5-year DSS rate of 100 %) (R0 vs R1 vs. R2 p = 0.001). Pre-operative factors associated with R2 resection were clinical metastatic disease (p < 0.001), non-gastric tumour site (p = 0.002) and large tumour diameter (p = 0.031). Three- and 5-year DFS rates were 65.5 and 59.8 %. Serosal perforation (p = 0.013) and mitotic rate (p = 0.05) were found to be independently predictive of increased DFS. The presence of serosal perforation was associated with tumour site (p = 0.018), mitotic rate (p = 0.035), tumour diameter (p < 0.001), growth pattern (p = 0.007) and age (p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: In the multidisciplinary management of GIST, serosal perforation may represent an additional predictor of recurrence along with mitotic rate. Complete macroscopic surgical resection is the most reliable prognostic factor, and an aggressive surgical approach should be advocated.