Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization. METHODS: This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614). CONCLUSION: The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

The differential benefit of laparoscopic over open minor liver resection for lesions situated in the anterolateral or posterosuperior segments.

Background: It is well known that laparoscopic liver surgery can offer advantages over open liver surgery in selected patients. However, what type of procedures can benefit most from a laparoscopic approach has been investigated poorly thus far. The aim of this study is thus to define the extent of advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery for lesions in the anterolateral (AL) and posterosuperior (PS) segments. Methods: In this international multicentre retrospective cohort study, laparoscopic and open minor liver resections for lesions in the AL and PS segments were compared after propensity score matching. The differential benefit of laparoscopy over open liver surgery, calculated using bootstrap sampling, was compared between AL and PS resections and expressed as a Delta of the differences. Results: After matching, 3,040 AL and 2,336 PS resections were compared, encompassing open and laparoscopic procedures in a 1:1 ratio. AL and PS laparoscopic liver resections were more advantageous in comparison to open in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay. However, AL resections benefitted more from laparoscopy than PS in terms of overall and severe complications (D-difference were 4.8%, P=0.046 and 3%, P=0.046) and blood loss (D-difference was 195 mL, P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the subset for high-volume centres, while in recent years no significant differences were found in the differential benefit between AL and PS segments. Conclusions: The advantage of laparoscopic over open liver surgery is greater in the AL segments than in the PS segments.

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. METHODS: An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. RESULTS: Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

Comparative analysis of geriatric hip fracture management outcomes in teaching and nonteaching hospitals in Jordan.

Hip fractures are common orthopedic injuries that have significant impacts on patients and healthcare systems. Previous studies have shown varying outcomes for hip fracture management in different settings, with diverse postoperative outcomes and complications. While teaching hospital settings have been investigated, no studies have specifically examined hip fracture outcomes in teaching hospitals in Jordan or the broader Middle East region. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate this important outcome. A cohort comprising 1268 patients who underwent hip fracture fixation from 2017 to 2020 was analyzed for nine distinct outcomes. These outcomes encompassed time to surgery, ICU admissions, perioperative hemoglobin levels, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, revision procedures, and mortality rates at three time points: in-hospital, at 6-months, and at 1-year post-surgery. The analysis of 1268 patients (616 in teaching hospitals, 652 in non-teaching hospitals) showed shorter mean time to surgery in teaching hospitals (2.2 days vs. 3.6 days, p < 0.01), higher ICU admissions (17% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.01), and more postoperative blood transfusions (40.3% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were similar between groups (2.4% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.72), as were rates at 6-months (3.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.65) and 1-year post-surgery (3.7% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.96). Geriatric hip fracture patients in teaching hospitals have shorter surgery times, more ICU admissions, and higher postoperative blood transfusion rates. However, there are no significant differences in readmission rates, hospital stays, or mortality rates at various intervals.

Translating knowledge into policy: Organizational model and minimum requirements for the implementation of a regional pancreas unit network.

Pancreatic and periampullary cancers pose significant challenges in oncological care due to their complexity and diagnostic difficulties. Global experiences underscore the crucial role of multidisciplinary collaboration and centralized care in improving patient outcomes in this context. Recognizing these challenges, Lombardy, Italy's most populous region, embarked on establishing pancreas units across its territory to enhance clinical outcomes and organizational efficiency. This initiative, driven by a multistakeholder approach involving the Lombardy Welfare Directorate, clinicians, and a patient association, emphasizes the centralization of complex care in high-volume hospitals, adopting a hub-and-spoke model and a multidisciplinary approach. This article outlines the process and criteria set forth for pancreas unit implementation, aiming to provide a structured framework for enhancing pancreatic cancer care. Central to this initiative is the establishment of structured criteria and minimal requirements, not only for surgery but also for other essential components of care, ensuring a comprehensive approach to pancreatic cancer management. The Lombardy model offers a structured framework for enhancing pancreatic cancer care, with potential applicability to other regions and countries seeking to improve their cancer care infrastructure.

Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Objective: To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background: The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I 2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (-16.3%; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I 2 = 0%) and general surgery (-6.7%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I 2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I 2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision. Conclusions: Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.

Added Value of Liver MRI in Patients Eligible for Surgical Resection or Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Based on CT: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is the standard imaging modality for detection and staging in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to CT in detecting small lesions, guidelines are ambiguous regarding the added value of an additional liver MRI in the surgical workup of patients with CRLM. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical added value of liver MRI in patients eligible for resection or ablation of CRLM based on CT. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through June 23, 2023. Studies investigating the impact of additional MRI on local treatment plan following CT in patients with CRLM were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The pooled weighted proportions for the primary outcome were calculated using random effect meta-analysis. Results: Overall, 11 studies with 1440 patients were included, of whom 468 patients (32.5%) were assessed for change in local treatment plan. Contrast-enhanced liver MRI was used in 10 studies, including gadoxetic acid in 9 studies. Liver MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging was used in 8 studies. Pooling of data found a 24.12% (95% confidence interval, 15.58%-32.65%) change in the local treatment plan based on the added findings of liver MRI following CT. Sensitivity analysis including 5 studies (268 patients) focusing on monophasic portal venous CT followed by gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging showed a change of local treatment plan of 17.88% (95% confidence interval, 5.14%-30.62%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that liver MRI changed the preinterventional local treatment plan in approximately one-fifth of patients eligible for surgical resection or ablation of CRLM based on CT. These findings suggest a clinically relevant added value of routine liver MRI in the preinterventional workup of CRLM, which should be confirmed by large prospective studies.

A machine learning predictive model for recurrence of resected distal cholangiocarcinoma: Development and validation of predictive model using artificial intelligence.

INTRODUCTION: Distal Cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) represents a challenge in hepatobiliary oncology, that requires nuanced post-resection prognostic modeling. Conventional staging criteria may oversimplify dCCA complexities, prompting the exploration of novel prognostic factors and methodologies, including machine learning algorithms. This study aims to develop a machine learning predictive model for recurrence after resected dCCA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective multicentric observational study included patients with dCCA from 13 international centers who underwent curative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). A LASSO-regularized Cox regression model was used to feature selection, examine the path of the coefficient and create a model to predict recurrence. Internal and external validation and model performance were assessed using the C-index score. Additionally, a web application was developed to enhance the clinical use of the algorithm. RESULTS: Among 654 patients, LNR (Lymph Node Ratio) 15, neural invasion, N stage, surgical radicality, and differentiation grade emerged as significant predictors of disease-free survival (DFS). The model showed the best discrimination capacity with a C-index value of 0.8 (CI 95 %, 0.77%-0.86 %) and highlighted LNR15 as the most influential factor. Internal and external validations showed the model's robustness and discriminative ability with an Area Under the Curve of 92.4 % (95 % CI, 88.2%-94.4 %) and 91.5 % (95 % CI, 88.4%-93.5 %), respectively. The predictive model is available at https://imim.shinyapps.io/LassoCholangioca/. CONCLUSIONS: This study pioneers the integration of machine learning into prognostic modeling for dCCA, yielding a robust predictive model for DFS following PD. The tool can provide information to both patients and healthcare providers, enhancing tailored treatments and follow-up.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on short-term outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score matched and coarsened exact matched study.

BACKGROUND: In the last three decades, minimally invasive liver resection has been replacing conventional open approach in liver surgery. More recently, developments in neoadjuvant chemotherapy have led to increased multidisciplinary management of colorectal liver metastases with both medical and surgical treatment modalities. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections remains poorly understood. METHODS: A multicenter, international, database of 4998 minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases was used to compare surgical outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone. To correct for baseline imbalance, propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed. RESULTS: 2546 patients met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching there were 759 patients in both groups and 383 patients in both groups after coarsened exact matching. Baseline characteristics were equal after both matching strategies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with statistically significant worse surgical outcomes of minimally invasive minor hepatectomy. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no statistically significant impact on short-term surgical outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

Toward a new paradigm of care: a surgical leaders' Delphi consensus on the organizational factors of the new pancreas units (E-AHPBA PUECOF study).

Pancreas units represent new organizational models of care that are now at the center of the European debate. The PUECOF study, endorsed by the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), aims to reach an expert consensus by enquiring surgical leaders about the Pancreas Units' most relevant organizational factors, with 30 surgical leaders from 14 countries participating in the Delphi survey. Results underline that surgeons believe in the need to organize multidisciplinary meetings, nurture team leadership, and create metrics. Clinical professionals and patients are considered the most relevant stakeholders, while the debate is open when considering different subjects like industry leaders and patient associations. Non-technical skills such as ethics, teamwork, professionalism, and leadership are highly considered, with mentoring, clinical cases, and training as the most appreciated facilitating factors. Surgeons show trust in functional leaders, key performance indicators, and the facilitating role played by nurse navigators and case managers. Pancreas units have a high potential to improve patients' outcomes. While the pancreas unit model of care will not change the technical content of pancreatic surgery, it may bring surgeons several benefits, including more cases, professional development, easier coordination, less stress, and opportunities to create fruitful connections with research institutions and industry leaders.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Pan-European survey on current treatment strategies in patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on the definition of upfront resectability and use of perioperative systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This survey aimed to summarize the current treatment strategies for upfront resectable CRLM throughout Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association to gain insight into the current views on resectability and the use of systemic therapy for upfront resectable CRLM. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 87 surgeons from 24 countries. The resectability of CRLM is mostly based on the volume of the future liver remnant, while considering tumor biology. Thermal ablation was considered as an acceptable adjunct to resection in parenchymal-sparing CRLM surgery by 77 % of the respondents. A total of 40.2 % of the respondents preferred standard perioperative systemic therapy and 24.1 % preferred standard upfront local treatment. CONCLUSION: Among the participating European hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons, there is a high degree of consensus on the definition of CRLM resectability. However, there is much variety in the use of adjunctive thermal ablation. Major variations persist in the use of perioperative systemic therapy in cases of upfront resectable CRLM, stressing the need for further evidence and a consensus.

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Efficacy and perioperative safety of different future liver remnant modulation techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In daily clinical practice, different future liver remnant (FLR) modulation techniques are increasingly used to allow a liver resection in patients with insufficient FLR volume. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and perioperative safety of portal vein ligation (PVL), portal vein embolization (PVE), liver venous deprivation (LVD) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). METHODS: A literature search for studies comparing liver resections following different FLR modulation techniques was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central, and pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 23 studies comprising 1557 patients were included. LVD achieved the greatest increase in FLR (17.32 %, 95% CI 2.49-32.15), while ALPPS was most effective in preventing dropout before the completion hepatectomy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.55). PVL tended to be associated with a longer time to completion hepatectomy (MD 5.78 days, 95% CI -0.67-12.23). Liver failure occurred less frequently after LVD, compared to PVE (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.87) and ALPPS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.85). DISCUSSION: ALPPS and LVD seem superior to PVE and PVL in terms of achieved FLR increase and subsequent treatment completion. LVD was associated with lower rates of post hepatectomy liver failure, compared to both PVE and ALPPS. A summary of the protocol has been prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022321474).