Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elective Open Conversion versus Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair for Previous Non-Infected Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of patients electively undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) or open conversion for failed previous non-infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHOD: The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023404091). The review followed the PRISMA guidelines; certainty was assessed through the GRADE and quality through MINORS tools. Outcomes data were pooled separately for F/B-EVAR and open conversion. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted; heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Thirty eight studies were included, for a total of 1 645 patients of whom 1 001 (60.9%) underwent an open conversion and 644 (39.1%) a F/B-EVAR. The quality of evidence was generally limited. GRADE certainty was judged low for 30 day death (in both groups) and F/B-EVAR technical success, and very low for the other outcomes. Pooled 30 day death was 2.3% (I2 33%) in the open conversion group and 2.4% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR conversion group (p = .36). Technical success for F/B-EVAR was 94.1% (I2 23%). The pooled 30 day major systemic complications rate was higher in the open conversion (21.3%; I2 74%) than in the F/B-EVAR (15.7%; I2 78%) group (p = .52). At 18 months follow up, the pooled re-intervention rate was 4.5% (I2 58%) in the open conversion and 26% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR group (p < .001), and overall survival was 92.5% (I2 59%) and 81.6% (I2 68%), respectively (p = .005). CONCLUSION: In the elective setting, and excluding infections, the early results of both open conversion and F/B-EVAR after failed EVAR appear satisfactory. Although open conversion presented with higher complication rates in the first 30 days after surgery, at follow up it seemed to be associated with fewer re-interventions and better survival compared with F/B-EVAR.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after semi-conversion with graft preservation for failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after semi-conversion (open conversion with graft preservation) after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and semi-conversion failure. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major systemic complications, endoleak recurrence, reinterventions, and overall survival. METHODS: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023421153). All studies reporting the outcomes of semi-conversions for failed EVAR were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. A random effects meta-regression of proportions was conducted using the double arcsine-Tukey transformation, given the frequent zero event rate in the primary outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review after full text screening. A total of 196 patients underwent semi-conversion at a mean time from EVAR of 47.4 months, 68.9% in an elective setting. Mean age at conversion was 78.1 years, and the main indication was isolated endoleak type II (70.1% of cases). Aortic clamping was not necessary in 92.3% of semi-conversions; the aortic sac was opened in 96.1% of cases; in 93.3% of cases, ligation/suture of one or more culprit arteries were performed; and aortic neck banding was executed in 29.2%. At 30 days from surgery, the pooled mortality and the major systemic complications rates were 5.3% (I2 = 24.9%) and 13.4% (I2 = 54.3%), respectively. At follow-up, endoleak recurred after 12.6% semi-conversions (I2 = 83.2%), and the rate of reinterventions was 7% (I2 = 50.1%); the semi-conversion failure rate was 5.5% (I2 = 54.1%), and the overall survival was 84.6% (I2 = 33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Semi-conversions have acceptable 30-day mortality rates, but the early and mid-term risks of complications, reinterventions, ruptures, and infections are not negligible. This procedure might be an alternative to complete or partial graft explant in patients whom aortic cross-clamping is not ideal.

Study protocol for neuromuscular stimulation for rehabilitation after general and vascular surgery: a pilot randomised clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the acceptability and safety of neuromuscular stimulation (NMES) as an adjunct for rehabilitation after vascular and general surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective, single-centre, single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled study. This study will be conducted in a single-centre, secondary care setting (National Healthcare Service Hospital) in the UK. All patients aged over 18 years undergoing vascular or general surgery with Rockwood Frailty Score of 3 or above on admission. Exclusion is inability or unwillingness to participate in trial, implanted electrical device, pregnancy and acute deep vein thrombosis. Target number of recruitment is 100. Participants will be randomly assigned to active NMES group (group A) or placebo NMES group (group B) prior to surgery. Participants will be blinded and asked to use the NMES device, 1-6 sessions daily (30 min per session) after surgery in addition to standard National Health Service rehabilitation care until discharge. The primary study outcomes are acceptability and safety of NMES assessed by the device satisfaction questionnaire on discharge and adverse events recorded during hospital stay. The secondary outcomes are the postoperative recovery and cost-effectiveness compared between two groups, assessed by various activity tests, mobility and independence measures and questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals were provided by London-Harrow Research Ethics Committee (REC) and the Health Research Authority (HRA), Ref: 21/PR/0250. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04784962.

Central macular thickness in patients with sickle cell disease and no signs of retinopathy: a cross-sectional study of Jordanian patients.

OBJECTIVES: To measure central macular thickness in Jordanian patients with sickle cell disease who did not have retinopathy and compare the findings with age- and sex-matched controls using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, participants underwent visual acuity testing, slit-lamp bio-microscopy, dilated ophthalmoscopy, and SDOCT imaging to measure central macular thickness. Macular quadrant measurements and thickness difference indexes (TDIs) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Twenty eyes with sickle cell disease and 20 control eyes were enrolled. The median visual acuity in both groups was 20/20. The mean macular thickness was significantly lower in eyes with sickle cell disease than in matched controls (mean difference, 22.15 ± 6.44 µm). Peripheral quadrants were all significantly thinner in eyes with sickle cell disease, especially in superior and temporal quadrants. TDIs were lower in eyes with sickle cell disease than in control eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Eyes with sickle cell disease that had no clinical evidence of retinopathy exhibited significantly lower central macular thickness in all quadrants, compared with eyes in age- and sex-matched controls. SDOCT is a non-invasive imaging modality that can detect preclinical changes in eyes with sickle cell disease and can be used to screen and monitor the disease process.

Unifying classification for transdiaphragmatic intercostal hernia and other costal margin injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Taxonomy of injuries involving the costal margin is poorly described and surgical management varies. These injuries, though commonly caused by trauma, may also occur spontaneously, in association with coughing or sneezing, and can be severe. Our goal was to describe our experience using sequential segmental analysis of computed tomographic (CT) scans to perform accurate assessment of injuries around the costal margin. We propose a unifying classification for transdiaphragmatic intercostal hernia and other injuries involving the costal margin. We identify the essential components and favoured techniques of surgical repair. METHODS: Patients presenting with injuries to the diaphragm or to the costal margin or with chest wall herniation were included in the study. We performed sequential segmental analysis of CT scans, assessing individual injury patterns to the costal margin, diaphragm and intercostal muscles, to create 7 distinct logical categories of injuries. Management was tailored to each category, adapted to the individual case when required. Patients with simple traumatic diaphragmatic rupture were considered separately, to allow an estimation of the relative incidence of injuries to the costal margin compared to those of the diaphragm alone. RESULTS: We identified 38 patients. Of these, 19 had injuries involving the costal margin and/or intercostal muscles (group 1). Sixteen patients in group 1 underwent surgery, 2 of whom had undergone prior surgery, with 4 requiring a novel double-layer mesh technique. Nineteen patients (group 2) with diaphragmatic rupture alone had a standard repair. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential analysis of CT scans of the costal margin, diaphragm and intercostal muscles defines accurately the categories of injury. We propose a 'Sheffield classification' in order to guide the clinical team to the most appropriate surgical repair. A variety of surgical techniques may be required, including a single- or double-layer mesh reinforcement and plate and screw fixation.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Single-Surgeon Learning Curve in 111 Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomies: Does Operative Time Tell the Whole Story?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is becoming the standard treatment for left-sided pancreatic disease. Learning curve identification is essential to ensure a safe and steady expansion. However, large (n > 30) single-surgeon learning curve series are lacking. STUDY DESIGN: Data of all patients undergoing LDP between June 2007 and March 2016 by a single surgeon were collected prospectively. For learning curve analysis, the first 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 LDPs were compared with LDPs performed thereafter. RESULTS: In total, 111 LDPs were performed, of which 2 (2%) were converted. Median operative time was 200 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 150 to 245 minutes) and median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100 to 300 mL). Learning curve analysis did not show improvements in operative time or blood loss. However, the number of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma increased after 30 cases and a significant reduction of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications was seen; from 30% (n = 9) for cases 1 to 30 to 5% (n = 4) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C fistulas (33% [n = 10] vs 9% [n = 7]; p = 0.001) and percutaneous drainage rate (23% [n = 7] vs 4% [n = 3]; p = 0.001) were lower. Hospital stay was 7 days (IQR 5 to 13 days) for cases 1 to 30 vs 5 days (IQR 4 to 6 days) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes of LDP remained stable with increasing surgical complexity over time. Postoperative outcomes, such as complications and length of hospital stay, improved after the first 30 cases. When describing learning curves, short- and long-term outcomes should be considered.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a multicenter cohort study on 196 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely accepted as a feasible option for distal pancreatectomy. However, the experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is limited to a small number of studies, reported by expert centers. The present study aimed to evaluate perioperative and oncological outcomes after LDP for PDAC in a large, multicenter cohort of patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the data on 196 patients with histologically verified PDAC, operated at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway), Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Republic of Korea), Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (Paris, France) and University Hospital Southampton (Southampton, UK) between January 2002 and April 2015 was conducted. The patients with standard (SLDP) and extended (i.e., en bloc with adjacent organ, ELDP) resections were compared in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 196 LDP procedures, 191 (97.4 %) were completed through laparoscopy, while five (2.6 %) were converted to open surgery. ELDP was performed in 30 (15.7 %) cases. Sixty-one (31.9 %) patients experienced postoperative complications, including 48 (25.1 %) with pancreatic fistula. The rate of clinically relevant fistula (grade B/C) was 15.7 %. Median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (2-63) days. Median follow-up was 16 months. Median survival was 31.3 months (95 % CI 22.9-39.6). Three- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 42.4 and 30 %, respectively. SLDP was associated with significantly higher survival compared with ELDP (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: LDP seems to be a feasible and safe procedure, providing satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery of liver metastases: a single-centre experience.

In the era of multimodal management of liver metastases, surgical resection remains the only curative option, with open approach still being referred to as the standard of care. Currently, the feasibility and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for liver resection have been largely demonstrated. However, its oncologic adequacy remains to be confirmed. The aim of this study is to report the oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic disease in a single-centre experience. A single-centre database of 413 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed and procedures for liver metastases were selected. The assessment of oncologic outcomes included analysis of minimal tumour-free margin, R1 resection rate and 3-year survival. The feasibility and safety of the procedures were also evaluated through analysis of perioperative outcomes. The study comprised 209 patients (294 procedures). Colorectal liver metastases were the commonest indication (67.9%). Fourteen patients had conversion (6.7%) and oncological concern was the commonest reason for conversion (42.8%). Median tumour-free margin was 10 mm and complete radical resections were achieved in 211 of 218 curative-intent procedures (96.7%). For patients affected by colorectal liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 85.9 and 66.7%. For patients affected by neuroendocrine liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 93 and 77.8%. Among the patients with metastases from other primaries, 1- and 3-year OS were 83.3 and 70.5%. The laparoscopic approach is a safe and valid option in the treatment of patients with metastatic liver disease undergoing curative resection. It does offer significant perioperative benefits without compromise of oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Nonperipheral Liver Lesions, the Diamond Technique: Technical Aspects, Clinical Outcomes, and Oncologic Efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of liver lesions has moved toward "parenchymal-sparing" strategies. Although open parenchymal-sparing liver resections are supported by encouraging results, the applicability of the laparoscopic approach for nonperipheral tumors is still questionable. Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resection for nonperipheral lesions with a description of the technique adopted in this setting. STUDY DESIGN: A prospectively collected single-center database of 517 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed. Laparoscopic nonperipheral parenchymal-sparing liver resections (LapPSLRs), that is, entirely intraparenchymal limited resections performed on nonperipheral lesions, were selected. Intra- and perioperative outcomes were analyzed along with 3-year actuarial survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases. RESULTS: The group comprised 49 LapPSLRs. Colorectal liver metastases were the most frequent diagnosis (n = 24 patients). Lesions were located in segments 8, 7, 4a, and 3 in 51%, 8.2%, 36.7%, and 4.1% of cases, respectively. Conversion occurred in 4 patients (8%). Intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes were calculated for the 24 isolated LapPSLR (not associated with any concurrent liver resection). Median operative time and blood loss were 215 minutes and 225 mL, respectively. Pringle maneuver was used in 75% of cases. Postoperative 90-day mortality was nil and morbidity rate was 12.5%. Median postoperative stay was 3 days. Median tumor-free margin was 4 mm and 100% R0 rate was achieved for all LapPSLRs with curative intent. Three-year overall, recurrence-free, and disease-free survival rates were 100%, 65.2%, and 69.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resections for nonperipheral liver lesions are feasible and can be performed safely without compromising perioperative and oncological outcomes.