Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial.

Background: Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods: This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings: Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation: In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

The PAncreatic Surgery Composite Endpoint PACE - Development and Validation of a Clinically Relevant Endpoint Requiring Lower Sample Sizes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a composite endpoint in pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Single endpoints in prospective and randomized studies have become impractical due to their low frequency and the marginal benefit of new interventions. METHODS: Data from prospective studies were used to develop (n=1273) and validate (n=544) a composite endpoint based on postoperative pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage as well as reoperation and reinterventions. All patients had pancreatectomies of different extents. The association of the developed PAncreatic surgery Composite Endpoint (PACE) with prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS) >75th percentile and mortality was assessed. A single-institution database was used for external validation (n = 2666). Sample size calculations were made for single outcomes and the composite endpoint. RESULTS: In the internal validation cohort, the PACE demonstrated an AUC of 78.0%, a sensitivity of 90.4% and a specificity of 67.6% in predicting a prolonged LOS. In the external cohort, the AUC was 76.9%, the sensitivity 73.8% and the specificity 80.1%. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly different for patients with a positive versus a negative PACE both in the development and internal validation cohort (5.1% vs 0.9%; P< 0.001), as well as in the external validation cohort (8.5% vs 1.2%, P< 0.001). The PACE enabled sample size reductions of up to 80.5% compared to single outcomes. CONCLUSION: The PACE performed well in predicting prolonged hospital stays and can be used as a standardized and clinically relevant endpoint for future prospective trials enabling lower sample sizes and therefore improved feasibility compared to single outcome parameters.

Postoperative Hiatal Hernia after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy-A Growing Problem in the Age of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Even though minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe and oncologically effective procedure, several authors have reported an increased risk of postoperative hiatal hernia (PHH). This study evaluates the incidence and risk factors of PHH after hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE). METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed on patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between January 2009 and April 2018. Computed tomography scans and patient files were reviewed to identify the PHH. RESULTS: 306 patients were included (152 HMIE; 154 OE). Of these, 23 patients (8%) developed PHH. Most patients (13/23, 57%) were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis and only 4 patients (17%) presented in an emergency setting with incarceration. The rate of PHH was significantly higher after HMIE compared to OE (13.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). No other risk factors for the development of PHH were identified in uni- or multi-variate analysis. Surgical repair of PHH was performed in 19/23 patients (83%). The recurrence rate of PHH after surgical repair was 32% (6/19 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The development of PHH is a relevant complication after hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy. Although most patients are asymptomatic, surgical repair is recommended to avoid incarceration with potentially fatal outcomes. Innovative techniques for the prevention and repair of PHH are urgently needed.

Oncological recurrence following pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with esophageal cancer - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate recurrence in patients with post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR) and in patients with complete response of primary tumor but persisting lymphatic spread of disease (non-pCR, ypT0ypN +) of esophageal cancer. METHODS: Seventy-five patients (63 pCR, 12 non-pCR) were analyzed retrospectively. Pattern and incidence of local and distant recurrence as well as the impact on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to FLOT protocol was compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to CROSS protocol. RESULTS: In the pCR group, isolated local recurrence was diagnosed in 3%, while no isolated local recurrence was observed in the non-pCR group due to the high incidence of distant recurrence. Distant recurrence was most common in both cohorts (isolated distant recurrence: pCR group 10% to non-pCR group 55%; simultaneous distant and local recurrence: pCR group 3% to non-pCR group 18%). Median time to distant recurrence was 5.5 months, and median time to local recurrence was 8.0 months. Cumulative incidence of distant recurrence (with and without simultaneous local recurrence) was 16% (± 6%) in pCR patients and 79% (± 13%) in non-pCR patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.123) estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. OS (HR 0.231) and DFS (HR 0.226) were significantly improved in patients with pCR compared to patients with non-pCR. Advantages for FLOT protocol compared to CROSS protocol, especially with regard to distant control of disease (HR 0.278), were observed (OS (HR 0.361), DFS (HR 0.226)). CONCLUSION: Distant recurrence is the predominant site of treatment failure in patients with pCR and non-pCR grade 1a regression, whereby recurrence rates are much higher in patients with non-pCR.

Proximal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction vs total gastrectomy in gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500).

BACKGROUND: In Germany and Western Europe, gastroesophageal junction cancer (AEG) and proximal gastric cancer are currently treated with (transhiatal-extended) total gastrectomy (TG) according to the latest treatment guidelines. TG leads to a severe and long-lasting impairment of postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treated patients. Recent studies have suggested that HRQoL of these patients could be improved by proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) without compromising oncologic safety. Our aim is therefore to conduct a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing PG-DTR with TG in AEG II/III and gastric cancer patients with overall survival as primary endpoint and HRQoL as key secondary endpoint. METHODS: This protocol is written with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P 2015) statement. We will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. We will also check references of relevant studies and perform a cited reference research. Titles and abstracts of the records identified by the searches will be screened, and full texts of all potentially relevant articles will be obtained. We will consider randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias of the included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.4 (Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration). DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify the current study pool concerning the comparison of TG and PG-DTR and help to finally refine the research questions and to allow an evidence-based trial design of the planned multicenter randomized-controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Study findings will be shared by publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021291500.

Conventional partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus an extended pancreatoduodenectomy (triangle operation) for pancreatic head cancers-study protocol for the randomised controlled TRIANGLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth most frequent cause of cancer-related death in the Western world, and its incidence is rising. In patients that undergo curative resection, local recurrence (LR) is frequent. A recently described surgical technique of extended pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) termed the TRIANGLE operation has been proposed as a promising approach to reduce LR and improve disease-free survival in PDAC patients. METHODS: The TRIANGLE trial is a multicentre confirmatory randomised controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 270 patients with suspected or histologically confirmed pancreatic head cancer scheduled for PD will be included in the trial and randomly assigned to the intervention group (extended PD defined as Inoue level 3 dissection along the superior mesenteric and celiac artery as well as removal of all soft tissue in the so-called triangle between the celiac artery, the SMA and the mesenterico-portal axis) or the control group (conventional PD with lymphadenectomy and removal of soft tissue according to current guidelines). The primary endpoint of the trial will be the disease-free survival of patients. Other perioperative outcomes as well as oncological parameters and patient-reported outcomes will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Despite multimodal treatment, LR remains high and disease-free survival is limited following PD for PDAC. The TRIANGLE operation could address these shortcomings of conventional PD as indicated in several retrospective studies. However, this technique could be associated with more adverse events for patients including intractable diarrhoea. The TRIANGLE trial will close the evidence gap as well as offer a risk-benefit assessment of this more radical approach to PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00030576 (UTN U1111-1243-4412) 19th December 2022.

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. METHODS: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214. Registered on 4th July 2022.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II-III) and gastric cancer. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB-III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B12 levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37-78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.

A Simple Classification of Pancreatic Duct Size and Texture Predicts Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A classification of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a classification system for pancreas-associated risk factors in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most relevant PD-associated complication. A simple standardized surgical reporting system based on pancreas-associated risk factors is lacking. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies investigating clinically relevant (CR) POPF (CR-POPF) and pancreas-associated risk factors after PD. A meta-analysis of CR-POPF rate for texture of the pancreas (soft vs not-soft) and main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Based on the results, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) proposes the following classification: A, not-soft (hard) texture and MPD >3 mm; B, not-soft (hard) texture and MPD ≤3 mm; C, soft texture and MPD >3 mm; D, soft texture and MPD ≤3 mm. The classification was evaluated in a multi-institutional, international cohort. RESULTS: Of the 2917 articles identified, 108 studies were included in the analyses. Soft pancreatic texture was significantly associated with the development of CR-POPF [odds ratio (OR) 4.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67-4.89, P < 0.01) following PD. Similarly, MPD diameter ≤3 mm significantly increased CR-POPF risk compared with >3 mm diameter MPDs (OR 3.66, 95% CI 2.62-5.12, P < 0.01). The proposed 4-stage system was confirmed in an independent cohort of 5533 patients with CR-POPF rates of 3.5%, 6.2%, 16.6%, and 23.2% for type A-D, respectively ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For future pancreatic surgical outcomes studies, the ISGPS recommends reporting these risk factors according to the proposed classification system for better comparability of results.

Pathological complete response in multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

To evaluate pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0ypN0) after neoadjuvant treatment compared with non-complete response (non-CR) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC), and 393 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Survival probability was analyzed in patients with: (i) pCR vs non-CR; (ii) complete response of the primary tumor but persisting lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T0N+) and (iii) pCR and tumor-free lymphnodes exhibiting signs of postneoadjuvant regression vs. no signs of regression. (i) Median overall survival (mOS) was favorable in patients with pCR (pCR: mOS not reached vs. non-CR: 41 months, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that grade of regression was not an independent predictor for prolonged survival. Instead, the achieved postneoadjuvant TNM-stage (T-stage: Hazard ratio [HR] ypT3-T4 vs. ypT0-T2: 1.837; N-stage: HR ypN1-N3 vs. ypN0: 2.046; Postneoadjuvant M-stage: HR ypM1 vs. ycM0: 2.709), the residual tumor (R)-classification (HR R1 vs. R0: 4.195) and the histologic subtype of EC (HR ESCC vs. EAC: 1.688) were prognostic factors. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a devastating prognosis, similar to those with local non-CR and lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T + N+) (non-CR-T0N+: 22.0 months, non-CR-T + N-: mOS not reached, non-CR-T + N+: 23.0 months; P-values: non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N-: 0.016; non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N+: 0.956; non-CR-T + N- vs. non-CR-T + N+: <0.001). Regressive changes in lymphnodes after neoadjuvant treatment did not influence survival-probability in patients with pCR (mOS not reached in each group; EAC-patients: P = 0.0919; ESCC-patients: P = 0.828). Particularly, the achieved postneoadjuvant ypTNM-stage influences the survival probability of patients with EC. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a dismal prognosis, and only true pathological complete response with ypT0ypN0 offers superior survival probabilities.

Distal Bile Duct Cancer: Radical (R0 > 1 mm) Resection Achieves Favorable Survival.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the outcome after resection for distal bile duct cancer (DBC) with focus on the impact of microscopic histopathological resection status R0 (>1 mm) versus R1 (≤1 mm) vs R1 (direct). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: DBC is a rare disease for which oncologic resection offers the only chance of cure. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for DBC were analyzed. Histopathological resection status was classified according to the Leeds protocol for pancreatic ductal adeno carcinoma (PDAC) (PDAC; R0 >1 mm margin clearance vs R1 ≤1 mm vs R1 direct margin involvement). RESULTS: A total of 196 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for DBC. Microscopic complete tumor clearance (R0>1 mm) was achieved in 113 patients (58%). Median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 37 months (5- and 10-year OS rate: 40% and 31%, respectively). After R0 resection, median OS increased to 78 months with a 5-year OS rate of 52%. Negative prognostic factors were age >70 years ( P < 0.0001, hazard ratio (HR) 2.48), intraoperative blood loss >1000 mL ( P = 0.0009, HR 1.99), pN1 and pN2 status ( P = 0.0052 and P = 0.0006, HR 2.14 and 2.62, respectively) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score >II ( P = 0.0259, HR 1.61). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest European single-center study of surgical treatment for DBC and the first to investigate the prognostic impact of the revised PDAC resection status definition in DBC. The results show that this definition is valid in DBC and that "true" R0 resection (>1 mm) is a key factor for excellent survival. In contrast to PDAC, there was no survival difference between R1 (≤1 mm) and R1 (direct).

A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery.

The use of digital technology is increasing rapidly across surgical specialities, yet there is no consensus for the term 'digital surgery'. This is critical as digital health technologies present technical, governance, and legal challenges which are unique to the surgeon and surgical patient. We aim to define the term digital surgery and the ethical issues surrounding its clinical application, and to identify barriers and research goals for future practice. 38 international experts, across the fields of surgery, AI, industry, law, ethics and policy, participated in a four-round Delphi exercise. Issues were generated by an expert panel and public panel through a scoping questionnaire around key themes identified from the literature and voted upon in two subsequent questionnaire rounds. Consensus was defined if >70% of the panel deemed the statement important and <30% unimportant. A final online meeting was held to discuss consensus statements. The definition of digital surgery as the use of technology for the enhancement of preoperative planning, surgical performance, therapeutic support, or training, to improve outcomes and reduce harm achieved 100% consensus agreement. We highlight key ethical issues concerning data, privacy, confidentiality and public trust, consent, law, litigation and liability, and commercial partnerships within digital surgery and identify barriers and research goals for future practice. Developers and users of digital surgery must not only have an awareness of the ethical issues surrounding digital applications in healthcare, but also the ethical considerations unique to digital surgery. Future research into these issues must involve all digital surgery stakeholders including patients.

Pancreatic surgery with or without drainage: propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: A recent RCT has shown that routine intraoperative drain placement after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is not necessary. The aim was to confirm this in real-world conditions. METHODS: A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of patients with and without drainage after PD or distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a high-volume centre was undertaken. Main outcomes were complications and duration of hospital stay. Multivariable regression analysis was used to assessed which factors led to intraoperative drainage after the standard was changed from drain to no drain. RESULTS: Of 377 patients who underwent PD, 266 were included in PSM analysis. No drain was associated with fewer major complications (42 (31.6 per cent) versus 62 (46.6 per cent); P = 0.017), shorter duration of hospital stay (mean(s.d.) 14.7(8.5) versus 19.6(14.9) days; P = 0.001), and required fewer interventional drain placements (8.4 versus 19.8 per cent; P = 0.013). In PSM analysis after DP (112 patients), no drainage was associated with fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (9 versus 18 per cent; P = 0.016), fewer overall complications (mean(s.d.) comprehensive complication index score 15.9(15.4) versus 24.8(20.4); P = 0.012), and a shorter hospital stay (9.3(7.0) versus 13.5(9.9) days; P = 0.011). Multivisceral resection (OR 2.80, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 7.59; P = 0.034) and longer operating times (OR 1.56, 1.04 to 2.36; P = 0.034) influenced the choice to place a drain after PD. Greater blood loss was associated with drainage after DP (OR 1.14, 1.02 to 1.30; P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Standard pancreatic resections can be performed safely without drainage. Surgeons were more reluctant to omit drainage after complex pancreatic resections.

Pancreatic surgery has traditionally relied on the use of drains placed during surgery that should facilitate outflow of fluids from the operating site. This principle has recently been challenged by specially designed studies showing that patients who do not receive a drain may have fewer complications. The present study has demonstrated that these results also apply to routine clinical settings outside the constraints of surgical trials.

[Randomized Controlled Trials in Pancreatic Surgery - an Update]. / RCTs in der Pankreaschirurgie der letzten 10 Jahre ­ ein Update.

This review provides a summary of important, completed and published clinical trials, together with interesting and important running RCTs in pancreatic surgery.Randomised controlled studies (RCT) are one of the most important sources of new evidence for the treatment of cancer patients. This is particularly the case for pancreas surgery, where complications are comparatively common and serious and innovative surgical techniques and peri-interventional innovations are needed that could reduce morbidity and mortality. Although there are many very different methodological challenges in performing surgical RCTs, large surgical RCTs of high scientific quality have been completed during the last 10 years.

Protocol of a prospective study investigating the association of PAncreatic parenchymal RISk factors with postoperative pancreatic fistula after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PARIS trial).

INTRODUCTION: Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for many malignant and benign diseases of the pancreatic head. Postoperative complication rates of up to 40% are regularly reported. One of the most common and potentially life-threatening complication is the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Parenchymal risk factors like main pancreatic duct diameter or texture of the pancreatic gland have already been identified in retrospective studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of parenchymal risk factors on POPF in a prospective manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All patients scheduled for elective PD at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery of the University of Heidelberg will be screened for eligibility. As diagnostic factors, diameter and texture of the pancreatic gland as well as radiological and histopathological features will be recorded. Furthermore, the new four class risk classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) will be recorded. The postoperative course will be monitored prospectively. The primary endpoint will be the association of the main pancreatic duct size and the texture of the pancreatic gland on POPF according to the updated ISGPS definition. The diagnostic value of the above-mentioned factors for POPF will be evaluated in a univariable and multivariable analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PARIS is a monocentric, prospective, diagnostic study to evaluate the association of parenchymal risk factors and the development of POPF approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-344/2019). Results will be available in 2022 and will be published at national and international meetings. With this knowledge, the intraoperative and perioperative decision-making process could be eased and improve the individual outcome of patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00017184.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations.

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I2=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.

Arterial Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Effective After a Learning Curve.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perioperative and oncologic long-term outcomes of patients with LAPC after surgical resection at a high-volume center for pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in LAPC with arterial involvement is controversial. METHODS: We analyzed 385 consecutive patients undergoing PAR (n = 195) or PAD (n = 190) of the encased artery for LAPC between January 1, 2003 and April 30, 2019. RESULTS: There were 183 total pancreatectomies, 113 partial pancreatoduodenectomies, 79 distal pancreatectomies, and 10 resections for tumor recurrences, including 121 multivisceral resections and 171 venous resections. Forty-three patients (11.4%) had resectable oligometastatic disease. All of the 190 patients undergoing PAD (100%) and 95 of the 195 patients undergoing PAR (48.7%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The R0 (circumferential resection margin negative) resection rate was 28%. The median hospital stay was 15 days (range: 3-236). The median survival after surgery for LAPC was 20.1 months and the overall 5-year survival rate 12.5%. In-hospital mortality was 8.8% for the entire patient cohort (n = 385). With increasing case load and growing expertise, there was a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality to 4.8% (n = 186) after 2013 (P = 0.005). The learning curve of experienced pancreatic surgeons for PAR was 15 such procedures. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that an arterial surgical approach is effective in LAPC with promising long-term survival. PAD after neoadjuvant treatment is safe. PAR is a technically demanding procedure and requires a high level of expertise.