Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84). CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Background: The optimal analgesic technique after pancreatoduodenectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to see whether epidural analgesia (EA) has superior clinical outcomes compared with non-epidural alternatives (N-EA) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. On 28 August 2018, relevant literature databases were searched. Primary outcomes were pain scores. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure of initial analgesia, complications, duration of hospital stay and mortality. Results: Three RCTs and eight cohort studies (25 089 patients) were included. N-EA treatments studied were: intravenous morphine, continuous wound infiltration, bilateral paravertebral thoracic catheters and intrathecal morphine. Patients receiving EA had a marginally lower pain score on days 0-3 after surgery than those receiving intravenous morphine (mean difference (MD) -0·50, 95 per cent c.i. -0·80 to -0·21; P < 0·001) and similar pain scores to patients who had continuous wound infiltration. Treatment failure occurred in 28·5 per cent of patients receiving EA, mainly for haemodynamic instability or inadequate pain control. EA was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·79; P < 0·001), shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2·69 (95 per cent c.i. -2·76 to -2·62) days; P < 0·001) and lower mortality (OR 0·69, 0·51 to 0 93; P = 0·02) compared with intravenous morphine. Conclusion: EA provides marginally lower pain scores in the first postoperative days than intravenous morphine, and appears to be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of hospital stay and less mortality.

Antecedentes: La técnica analgésica óptima tras una duodenopancreatectomía permanece en debate. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar si la analgesia epidural (epidural analgesia, EA) presenta resultados clínicos superiores en comparación con las alternativas no epidurales (non­epidural alternatives, N­EA) en pacientes que se someten a una duodenopancreatectomía. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis de acuerdo con las recomendaciones PRISMA. El 28 de agosto de 2018, se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos relevantes de la literatura. El objetivo primario fueron las puntuaciones de dolor. Los objetivos secundarios fueron el fracaso del tratamiento de la analgesia inicial, las complicaciones, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la mortalidad. Resultados: Se incluyeron tres ensayos aleatorizados y controlados y ocho estudios de cohortes (25.089 pacientes). Las N­EA estudiadas fueron: morfina intravenosa (iv), infiltración continua de la herida, catéteres torácicos paravertebrales bilaterales y morfina intratecal. Los pacientes con EA tuvieron una puntuación de dolor marginalmente más baja en los días postoperatorios 0 a 3 en comparación con la morfina iv (diferencia de medias (MD) = ­ 0,50, i.c. del 95% ­0,80 a ­0,21; P < 0,001) y puntuaciones de dolor similares en comparación con la infiltración continua de la herida. El fallo del tratamiento ocurrió en el 28,5% de los pacientes con EA, principalmente por inestabilidad hemodinámica o control inadecuado del dolor. La EA se asoció con menos complicaciones (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR = 0,69, i.c. del 95% 0,061 a 0,79; P < 0,001), menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria (MD = ­2,69 días, i.c. del 95% ­2,76 a ­2,62; P < 0,001) y menor mortalidad en comparación con la morfina iv (OR = 0,69, i.c. del 95% 0,51 a 0,93; P = 0,01). Conclusión: La EA proporciona puntuaciones de dolor ligeramente más bajas en los primeros días postoperatorios en comparación con la morfina iv y parece asociarse con menos complicaciones, menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria y menor mortalidad.

Impact of resection margin status on recurrence and survival in pancreatic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor and selection of patients for surgery is challenging. This study examined the impact of a positive resection margin (R1) on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and overall survival (OS); and also aimed to identified tumour characteristics and/or technical factors associated with a positive resection margin in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Patients scheduled for pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2006 and 2016 were identified from an institutional database. The effect of resection margin status, patient characteristics and tumour characteristics on LRR, distant metastasis and OS was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC. A positive resection (R1) margin was found in 129 patients (40·1 per cent); this was associated with decreased OS compared with that in patients with an R0 margin (median 15 (95 per cent c.i. 13 to 17) versus 22 months; P < 0·001). R1 status was associated with reduced time to LRR (median 16 versus 36 (not estimated, n.e.) months; P = 0·002). Disease recurrence patterns were similar in the R1 and R0 groups. Risk factors for early recurrence were tumour stage, positive lymph nodes (N1) and perineural invasion. Among 100 patients with N0 disease, R1 status was associated with shorter OS compared with R0 resection (median 17 (10 to 24) versus 45 (n.e.) months; P = 0·002), whereas R status was not related to OS in 222 patients with N1 disease (median 14 (12 to 16) versus 17 (15 to 19) months after R1 and R0 resection respectively; P = 0·068). CONCLUSION: Although pancreatic resection with a positive margin was associated with poor survival and early recurrence, particularly in patients with N1 disease, disease recurrence patterns were similar between R1 and R0 groups.

Outcomes following pancreatic surgery using three different thromboprophylaxis regimens.

BACKGROUND: Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are serious complications following pancreatic surgery. The aim was to assess the timing, occurrence and predictors of PPH and VTE. METHODS: Elective pancreatic resections undertaken in a single university hospital between November 2013 and September 2017 were assessed. Three intervals were reviewed, each with a different routine regimen of nadroparin: 2850 units once daily (single dose) administered in hospital only, or 5700 units once daily (double dose) or 2850 units twice daily (split dose) administered in hospital and continued for 6 weeks after surgery. Clinically relevant PPH (CR-PPH) was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. VTE was defined according to a number of key diagnostic criteria within 6 weeks of surgery. Cox regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses that the double-dose group would experience more PPH than the other two groups, the single-dose group would experience more VTE than the other two groups, and the split-dose group would experience the fewest adverse events (PPH or VTE). RESULTS: In total, 240 patients were included, 80 per group. The double-dose group experienced significantly more CR-PPH (hazard ratio (HR) 2·14, 95 per cent c.i. 1·16 to 3·94; P = 0·015). More relaparotomies due to CR-PPH were performed in the double-dose group (16 versus 3·8 per cent; P = 0·002). The single-dose group did not experience more VTE (HR 1·41, 0·43 to 4·62; P = 0·570). The split dose was not associated with fewer adverse events (HR 0·77, 0·41 to 1·46; P = 0·422). Double-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), high BMI and pancreatic fistula were independent predictors of CR-PPH. CONCLUSION: A double dose of LMWH prophylaxis continued for 6 weeks after pancreatic resection was associated with a twofold higher rate of CR-PPH, resulting in four times more relaparotomies. Patients receiving a single daily dose of LMWH in hospital only did not experience a higher rate of VTE.

Differences in Treatment and Outcome of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Stage I and II in the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The EUropean REgistration of Cancer CAre (EURECCA) consortium aims to investigate differences in treatment and to improve cancer care through Europe. The purpose of this study was to compare neo- and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and outcome after tumor resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma stage I and II in the EURECCA Pancreas consortium. METHODS: The eight, collaborating national, regional, and single-center partners shared their anonymized dataset. Patients diagnosed in 2012-2013 who underwent tumor resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma stage I and II were investigated with respect to treatment and survival and compared using uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses. All comparisons were performed separately per registry type: national, regional, and single-center registries. RESULTS: In total, 2052 patients were included. Stage II was present in the majority of patients. The use of neo-ACT was limited in most registries (range 2.8-15.5%) and was only different between Belgium and The Netherlands after adjustment for potential confounders. The use of ACT was different between the registries (range 40.5-70.0%), even after adjustment for potential confounders. Ninety-day mortality was also different between the registries (range 0.9-13.6%). In multivariable analyses for overall survival, differences were observed between the national and regional registries. Furthermore, patients in ascending age groups and patients with stage II showed a significant worse overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a clear insight in clinical practice in the EURECCA Pancreas consortium. The differences observed in (neo-)ACT and outcome give us the chance to further investigate the best practices and improve outcome of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.