Preoperative nutritional support in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery affects PREPARE score accuracy.

Background: This study aimed to validate the accuracy of the Preoperative Pancreatic Resection (PREPARE) risk score in pancreatic resection patients. Patients and methods: This prospective study included 216 patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2015 and December 2018. All patients in our cohort with weight loss or lack of appetite received dietary advice and preoperative oral nutritional supplementation (600 kcal/day). Demographic, clinicopathological, operative, and postoperative data were collected prospectively. The PREPARE score and the predicted risk of major complications were computed for each patient. Differences in major postoperative complications were analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. The predicted and observed risks of major complications were tested using the C-statistic. Results: The study included 216 patients [117 men (54.2%)] with a median age of 65.0 (30.0-83.0) years. The majority of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)' Physical Status score II (N = 164/216; 75.9%) and as "low risk" PREPARE score (N = 185/216; 85.6%) before the surgery. Only 4 (1.9%) patients were malnourished, with albumin levels of less than 3.5 g/dl. The most common type of pancreatic resection was a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (N = 122/216; 56.5%). Major morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 11.1% and 1.9%, respectively. The type of surgical procedure (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.849; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.208-12.264) and ASA score (HR: 3.089; 95% CI: 1.067-8.947) were significantly associated with the incidence of major postoperative complications in multivariate analysis. The receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.657 for incremental values and 0.559 for risk categories, indicating a weak predictive model. Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that the PREPARE risk score has low accuracy in predicting the risk of major complications in patients with consistent preoperative nutritional support. This limits the use of PREPARE risk score in future preoperative clinical routines.

Major iatrogenic bile duct injury during elective cholecystectomy: a Czech population register-based study.

PURPOSE: Bile duct injury (BDI) remains the most serious complication following cholecystectomy. However, the actual incidence of BDI in the Czech Republic remains unknown. Hence, we aimed to identify the incidence of major BDI requiring operative reconstruction after elective cholecystectomy in our region despite the prevailing modern 4 K Ultra HD laparoscopy and Critical View of Safety (CVS) standards implemented in daily surgical practice among the Czech population. METHODS: In the absence of a specific registry for BDI, we analysed data from The Czech National Patient Register of Reimbursed Healthcare Services, where all procedures are mandatorily recorded. We investigated 76,345 patients who were enrolled for at least a year and underwent elective cholecystectomy during the period from 2018-2021. In this cohort, we examined the incidence of major BDI following the reconstruction of the biliary tract and other complications. RESULTS: A total of 76,345 elective cholecystectomies were performed during the study period, and 186 major BDIs were registered (0.24%). Most elective cholecystectomies were performed laparoscopically (84.7%), with the remaining open (15.3%). The incidence of BDI was higher in the open surgery group (150 BDI/11700 cases/1.28%) than in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (36 BDI/64645 cases/0.06%). Furthermore, the total hospital stays with BDI after reconstruction was 13.6 days. However, the majority of laparoscopic elective cholecystectomies (57,914, 89.6%) were safe and standard procedures with no complications. CONCLUSION: Our study corroborates the findings of previous nationwide studies. Therefore, though laparoscopic cholecystectomy is reliable, the risks of BDI cannot be eliminated.

Gastropericardial fistula in a patient with upside-down stomach and stomach perforation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Gastropericardial fistula is a pathological communication between the stomach and the pericardium. This case report describes a gastropericardial fistula in a patient with upside-down stomach. CASE PRESENTATION: The male patient (86) was examined for severe chest pain behind the sternum. CT revealed upside-down stomach with perforation on the lesser gastric curvature and fistulation into the pericardium with pneumopericardium. The patient was indicated for surgery. The procedure was performed from a transverse laparotomy and consisted of repositioning the stomach into the abdominal cavity, resection of the hernial sac, suture of the perforation of the lesser curvature, gastropexy and transhiatal drainage of the mediastinum and lesser sac. In the early postoperative period, the recovery was uneventful. Acute myocardial infarction with cardiorespiratory failure developed on the postoperative day (POD) 13. The patient died on POD 24 due to cardiorespiratory failure, confirmed by a sectional finding. CONCLUSIONS: Gastropericardial fistula is a rare acute complication of the diseases of the upper GIT. It is invariably a serious, life-threatening condition. Diagnosis is confirmed by thoracic CT and a contrast swallow study. The necessity of acute surgical treatment is widely accepted. The type of procedure must be selected based on the patient's individual criteria.

Indications and benefits of intraoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (IOG) is a diagnostic and therapeutic method for a variety of special conditions in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) pathology. The indication remains individual due to insufficient evidence and limited training of surgeons in digestive endoscopy. AIM: To evaluate the indications, benefits and risks of IOG. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of 110 consecutive IOGs in 104 patients was performed. The preoperative plan, the timing of IOG, preoperative evaluation, intraoperative finding, localization of the pathology, type of the procedure, change of expected therapy and complications were assessed. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 29 esophageal tumors, 5 tumors of the cardia, 36 gastric tumors, gastrointestinal bleeding (8), esophageal diverticula (3), perforations (3), GERD (5), mediastinal pathology (3), fistula (4), assessment of nutrition (10), duodenal adenoma (2), ulcer disease, esophageal stenosis and gastric volvulus. The indication for IOG was established preoperatively in 79% and intraoperatively in 21%. The lesion was localized in 96.4%. The therapy was altered to a wider resection (11), smaller resection (5), localization and surgical therapy of bleeding (8) or allowed minimally invasive surgery (25). A total of 3 postoperative complications included gastric perforation and positivity of resection line (following EMR/ESD) and recurrent bleeding. The 30-day mortality reached 3.6% without a specific cause in IOG. CONCLUSIONS: The IOG is a complementary method in the diagnosis and treatment of UGI pathology. It enables minimally invasive finalization of the procedures and individualization of the therapy.