Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. METHODS: An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection. RESULTS: Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la cirrosis en los resultados a corto plazo después de la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) en un estudio de cohortes multicéntrico nacional. MÉTODOS: Este estudio retrospectivo incluyó todos los pacientes sometidos a LLR en 27 centros entre 2000 y 2017. La cirrosis se definió como fibrosis F4 en el examen histopatológico. Los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes con hígado cirrótico (cirrhotic liver CL) (pacientes CL) y los pacientes con hígado no cirrótico (non-cirrhotic liver, NCL) (pacientes NCL) se compararon después de realizar un emparejamiento por puntaje de propension del volumen del centro, las características demográficas y del tumor, y la extensión de la resección. RESULTADOS: Del total de 3.150 pacientes incluidos, se realizó LLR en 774 (24,6%) pacientes CL y en 2.376 (75,4%) pacientes NCL. Las tasas de complicaciones graves y mortalidad en el grupo de pacientes CL fueron del 10,6% y 2,6%, respectivamente. La insuficiencia hepática posterior a la hepatectomía (post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF) fue la principal causa de mortalidad (55% de los casos) y se produjo en el 3,6% de los casos en pacientes CL. Después del emparejamiento, los pacientes CL tendieron a tener tasas más altas de complicaciones graves (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,74; i.c. del 95% 0,92-0,41; P = 0,096) y de PHLF (OR 7,13; i.c. del 95% 0,91-323,10; P = 0,068) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL estuvieron expuestos a un mayor riesgo de mortalidad (OR 5,13; i.c. del 95% 1,08-48,6; P = 0,039) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL presentaron tasas similares de complicaciones cardiorrespiratorias graves (P = 0,338), de fuga biliar (P = 0,286) y de reintervenciones (P = 0,352) que los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL tuvieron una estancia hospitalaria más larga (11 versus 8 días; P = 0,018) que los pacientes NCL. La experiencia del centro fue un factor protector independiente de PHLF (OR 0,33; i.c. del 95% 0,14-0,76; P = 0,010) pacientes CL. CONCLUSIÓN: La presencia de cirrosis subyacente sigue siendo un factor de riesgo independiente de peores resultados en pacientes sometidos a resección hepática laparoscópica, incluso en centros con experiencia.

Parenteral and enteral nutritional support (excluding immunonutrition).

The surgeon plays a key role in the perioperative nutritional care in patients undergoing elective major digestive surgery; therefore, he has to be able to anticipate needs and to implement corrective measures according to recommendations. Pre- and postoperative enteral feeding is preferred. In patients without obvious undernutrition, postoperative nutritional support has to be initiated if patients cannot maintain oral intake above 60% of recommended intake for more than 7 days, and it has to be programmed if it is anticipated that the patient will be unable to eat for more than 7 days. Preoperative and postoperative nutritional support has to be offer in malnourished patients (grades 3 and 4).

Re-operation for failed gastro-esophageal fundoplication. What results to expect?

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study is to evaluate short and medium term results of re-operation for failed fundoplication in a retrospective monocentric cohort of 47 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 2011, 595 patients underwent a laparoscopic primary fundoplication (PFP) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During the same period, 47 patients required a re-operative fundoplication (RFP). In 11 patients, the original wrap had herniated into the thorax. All these revisions consisted of a complete takedown of the original wrap before constructing a tension-free wrap using a standardized technique. Patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years were matched to patients who had been operated only once to assess satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Short term: All patients were operated by laparoscopy with no conversion. There was no mortality. Two postoperative complications necessitating re-operation were observed (morbidity 4.3%): one complete aphagia and one gastric perforation. Long term: 29 re-operated patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years (mean: 4,5 years) (Group RFP) were compared to a matched group of 29 patients operated only once (Group PFP). These groups were comparable in age, sex ratio, BMI and follow-up. In both groups, all patients were operated by laparoscopy without conversion. Morbidity was 3.5% in the RFP group, none in the PFP group. There was no mortality in either group. The length of stay and operative time were significantly higher in the RFP group (4.6 vs. 2.6 days, p<0.05). Two RFP patients (5%) required re-operation at three and seven months vs. none in the PFP group. The long-term satisfaction was comparable in the two groups (78% vs. 85%, p=NS). Quality of life assessed by the GIQLI was significantly better in the PFP group (104 vs. 84, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Re-do fundoplication is a safe procedure and is feasible by laparoscopy. In the long-term, patient satisfaction is comparable to primary intervention with, however, a slightly poorer quality of life.