Aborted pancreatoduodenectomy after extensive vascular dissection in patients with pancreatic cancer: a word of caution.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties in distinguishing fibrosis from tumor in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) justify surgical exploration to assess resectability. This issue is especially relevant after neoadjuvant treatments (NAT) prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) although outcomes of aborted PD are unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate early outcomes after aborted PD in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Data were collected over a ten-year period, in three University Hospitals in France. Perioperative patient management was similar. The causes of intraoperative PD abortions were recorded, and outcomes of patients who underwent early (metastases, carcinomatosis) and late (following extensive vascular dissection) PD abortion were compared. RESULTS: Of 774 PD for PDAC, 131 (17%) were aborted. 97 (74%) patients underwent early PD abortion due to carcinomatosis (n = 14; 14%), liver metastases (n = 32; 33%), aortocaval lymph node invasion (n = 28; 29%) and massive vascular extension (n = 23; 24%). Late PD abortion occurred after extensive vascular dissection in 34 (26%) patients due to invasion of the common hepatic (n = 16; 47%), superior mesenteric (n = 5; 15%) and right hepatic (n = 1; 3%) arteries and nonreconstructable venous invasion (n = 12; 35%). Patients who underwent late PD abortion had higher rates of overall morbidity (n = 22; 65% vs n = 27; 28%, p = 0.0001), severe complications (n = 14; 41% vs n = 11; 11%, p = 0.0005), mortality (n = 4; 12% vs n = 0; 0%, p = 0.003). They also had higher rates of delayed gastric emptying (n = 11; 32% vs n = 6; 6%, p = 0.0003), deep space infections (n = 10; 29% vs n = 7; 7%, p = 0.002), wound infections (n = 5; 15% vs n = 4; 4%, p = 0.05), and bleeding (n = 8; 24% vs n = 0; 0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Aborted PD after extensive vascular dissection has high morbidity and mortality rates. Appropriate information and counseling should be delivered to patients with borderline/locally advanced PDAC considered for PD.

Stapfer I and II duodenal perforations after endoscopic procedures: how surgical delay impacts outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Post-endoscopic duodenal perforation is a severe adverse event with high morbidity and mortality rates. Managing this rare event is challenging owing to limited clear guidelines. This retrospective study aimed to examine the relationship between time-to-treatment and morbidity among patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations. METHODS: Over 20 years, 78 consecutive patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations were analyzed. Among these, most patients underwent endoscopic procedures at the Paoli-Calmettes Institute, whereas some were referred from other centers after a diagnosis of perforation. We described the characteristics of patients who underwent medical treatment alone or interventional procedures. Among patients who underwent interventional management, we compared the outcomes following early or delayed procedures (later than 24 h post-duodenal perforation diagnosis). RESULTS: Overall, 78 patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforation were identified between September 2003 and September 2022. Of these, 17 (22%) patients underwent non-operative management, and 61 (78%) with peritonitis or adverse clinical features were treated with endoscopic or surgical procedures. Additionally, among these patients, 40 (65%) underwent immediate invasive procedures, surgically (n = 20) or endoscopically (n = 20). Patients with delayed procedures experienced more major Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications and had an increase by 21 of the median comprehensive complication index. Overall, mortality occurred in 7 (8.9%) patients in the entire cohort and in 3 (14.3%) with delayed invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed decision-making is a key factor complicating post-endoscopic duodenal perforation. Therefore, invasive procedures should be performed promptly in cases of adverse conditions requiring additional procedures, ideally within the first 24 h of perforation diagnosis.

Strategies for liver transplantation during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: Preliminary experience from a single center in France.

Liver transplantation (LT) during the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging given the urgent need to reallocate resources to other areas of patient care. Available guidelines recommend reorganizing transplant care, but data on clinical experience in the context of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are scarce. Thus, we report strategies and preliminary results in LT during the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from a single center in France. Our strategy to reorganize the transplant program included 4 main steps: optimization of available resources, especially intensive care unit capacity; multidisciplinary risk stratification of LT candidates on the waiting list; implementation of a systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy prior to transplantation; and definition of optimal recipient-donor matching. After implementation of these 4 steps, we performed 10 successful LTs during the peak of the pandemic with a short median intensive care unit stay (2.5 days), benchmark posttransplant morbidity, and no occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up. From this preliminary experience we conclude that efforts in resource planning, optimal recipient selection, and organ allocation strategy are key to maintain a safe LT activity. Transplant centers should be ready to readapt their practices as the pandemic evolves.