Centralizing a national pancreatoduodenectomy service: striking the right balance.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery is currently called for owing to superior outcomes in higher-volume centres. Conversely, organizational and patient concerns speak for a moderation in centralization. Consensus on the optimal balance has not yet been reached. This observational study presents a volume-outcome analysis of a complete national cohort in a health system with long-standing centralization. METHODS: Data for all pancreatoduodenectomies in Norway in 2015 and 2016 were identified through a national quality registry and completed through electronic patient journals. Hospitals were dichotomized (high-volume (40 or more procedures/year) or medium-low-volume). RESULTS: Some 394 procedures were performed (201 in high-volume and 193 in medium-low-volume units). Major postoperative complications occurred in 125 patients (31·7 per cent). A clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 66 patients (16·8 per cent). Some 17 patients (4·3 per cent) died within 90 days, and the failure-to-rescue rate was 13·6 per cent (17 of 125 patients). In multivariable comparison with the high-volume centre, medium-low-volume units had similar overall complication rates, lower 90-day mortality (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·07 to 0·82) and no tendency for a higher failure-to-rescue rate. CONCLUSION: Centralization beyond medium volume will probably not improve on 90-day mortality or failure-to-rescue rates after pancreatoduodenectomy.

ANTECEDENTES: Actualmente se aboga por la centralización de la cirugía pancreática debido a los mejores resultados obtenidos en los centros de mayor volumen. Por el contrario, la preocupación de las organizaciones y de los pacientes está en línea con la sobriedad en la centralización. Todavía no se ha alcanzado un consenso en el equilibrio óptimo. Este estudio observacional presenta un análisis de volumen-resultado de una cohorte nacional completa en un sistema de salud con largo tiempo de centralización. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron los datos de todas las duodenopancreatectomías realizadas en Noruega en 2015 y 2016 a través de un registro nacional de calidad y se completaron a través de los datos electrónicos de los pacientes. Los hospitales fueron dicotomizados (volumen alto (≥ 40 procedimientos/año) o volumen medio/bajo)) RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 394 procedimientos (201 versus 193 en unidades de volumen alto versus volumen medio/bajo). Un total de 125 pacientes (31,7%) presentaron complicaciones postoperatorias mayores. Se diagnosticó una fístula pancreática postoperatoria clínicamente relevante en 66 pacientes (16,8%). En total, 17 pacientes (4,3%) fallecieron dentro de los 90 días, y la tasa de fracaso de rescate fue de 17 de 125 (13,6%) pacientes. En el análisis multivariable de comparación con el centro de volumen alto, las unidades de volumen medio/bajo presentaron tasas de complicaciones generales iguales, menor mortalidad a los 90 días (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 0,2, i.c. del 95% 0,1-0,8) y sin tendencia a una mayor tasa de fracaso de rescate. CONCLUSIÓN: La centralización más allá del volumen medio probablemente no mejore la mortalidad a los 90 días o las tasas de fracaso de rescate después de la duodenopancreatectomía.

Nasogastric Tube on Demand is Rarely Necessary After Pancreatoduodenectomy Within an Enhanced Recovery Pathway.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for enhanced recovery (ERAS) pathways after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are available. Routine use of nasogatric tube (NGT) after PD is not recommended. This study aims to evaluate the need for NGT reinsertion after PD performed within an ERAS setting. METHODS: It is a prospective observational study of all patients undergoing PD in a tertiary referral hospital within the study period from 2015 throughout 2016. Pre- and postoperative variables were collected. Patients requiring NGT reinsertion were identified. Comparative analysis of patients with and without a NGT reinsertion was performed, as well as multivariate analysis for risk factors for on-demand NGT reinsertion. RESULTS: Two-hundred and one patients were included. In total, 45 (22.4%) patients required NGT reinsertion after PD. A total of 32 (15.9%) patients underwent a relaparotomy. Reinsertion of NGT in patients not undergoing a relaparotomy occurred in 26 (15.4%) patients. The presence of a major postoperative complication was a risk factor for reinsertion of NGT, OR 5.27 (2.54-10.94, p = 0.001). Patients with the need for a NGT reinsertion had a higher frequency of major postoperative complications and relaparotomy compared to patients without the need of a NGT reinsertion, 26 (57.8%) versus 32 (20.5%), p < 0.001 and 19 (42.2%) versus 13 (8.3%), p < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSION: Routine use of NGT after PD is not justified within an ERAS setting. Immediate removal of the NGT after the procedure can be performed safely, and reinsertion on demand is rarely necessary in uncomplicated courses.

Trends in indications, complications and outcomes for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric-portal vein resection has become a common procedure in pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy plus venous resection at a high-volume centre, and to examine trends in management and outcome over a decade for the latter procedure. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with or without venous resection at Oslo University Hospital between January 2006 and December 2015. Trends were evaluated by assessing preoperative clinical and radiological characteristics, as well as perioperative outcomes in three time intervals (early, intermediate and late). RESULTS: A total of 784 patients had a pancreatoduodenectomy, of whom 127 (16·2 per cent) underwent venous resection. Venous resection resulted in a longer operating time (median 422 versus 312 min; P = 0·001) and greater estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 700 versus 500 ml; P = 0·004) than standard pancreatoduodenectomy. The rate of severe complications was significantly higher for pancreatoduodenectomy with venous resection (37·0 versus 26·3 per cent; P = 0·014). The overall burden of complications, evaluated using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), did not differ (median score 8·7 versus 8·7; P = 0·175). Trends in venous resection over time showed a significant reduction in EBL (median 1050 versus 375 ml; P = 0·001) and duration of hospital stay (median 14 versus 9 days; P = 0·011) between the early and late periods. However, despite an improvement in the intermediate period, severe complication rates returned to baseline in the late period (18 of 43 versus 9 of 42 versus 20 of 42 patients in early, intermediate and late periods respectively; P = 0·032), as did CCI scores (median 20·9 versus 0 versus 20·9; P = 0·041). CONCLUSION: Despite an initial improvement in severe complications for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, this was not maintained over time. Every fourth patient with venous resection needed relaparotomy, most frequently for bleeding.