The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p

Perioperative Interventions to Reduce Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Data on interventions to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assimilate data from RCTs. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched systematically for RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce all grades of POPF or clinically relevant (CR) POPF after PD. Meta-analysis was undertaken for interventions investigated in multiple studies. A post hoc analysis of negative RCTs assessed whether these had appropriate statistical power. RESULTS: Among 22 interventions (7512 patients, 55 studies), 12 were assessed by multiple studies, and subjected to meta-analysis. Of these, external pancreatic duct drainage was the only intervention associated with reduced rates of both CR-POPF (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.80) and all-POPF (OR 0.42, 0.25 to 0.70). Ulinastatin was associated with reduced rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.24, 0.06 to 0.93). Invagination (versus duct-to-mucosa) pancreatojejunostomy was associated with reduced rates of all-POPF (OR 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90). Most negative RCTs were found to be underpowered, with post hoc power calculations indicating that interventions would need to reduce the POPF rate to 1 per cent or less in order to achieve 80 per cent power in 16 of 34 (all-POPF) and 19 of 25 (CR-POPF) studies respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports a role for several interventions to reduce POPF after PD. RCTs in this field were often relatively small and underpowered, especially those evaluating CR-POPF

Can trainees safely perform pancreatoenteric anastomosis? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk-adjusted analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula

Background: The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort. Results: Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P =.45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P =.37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P =.05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P <.001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P =.020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P =.604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P =.693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons. Conclusion: Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance

The Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment on Survival in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy With Concomitant Portomesenteric Venous Resection: An International Multicenter Analysis

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) critically influenced microscopically complete resection (R0) rates and long-term outcomes for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric vein resection (PVR) from a diverse, world-wide group of high-volume centers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited size studies suggest that NAT improves R0 rates and overall survival compared to upfront surgery in R/BR-PDAC patients. METHODS: This multicenter study analyzed consecutive patients with R/BR-PDAC who underwent PD with PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. RESULTS: Data from 1192 patients with PD and PVR were collected and analyzed. The median age was 68 [interquartile range (IQR) 60-73] years and 52% were males. Some 186 (15.6%) and 131 (10.9%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) alone and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, respectively. The R0/R1/R2 rates were 57%, 39.3%, and 3.2% in patients who received NAT compared to 46.6%, 49.9%, and 3.5% in patients who did not, respectively (P =0.004). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS in patients receiving NAT was 79%, 41%, and 29%, while for those that did not it was 73%, 29%, and 18%, respectively (P <0.001). Multivariable analysis showed no administration of NAT, high tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, R1/R2 resection, no adjuvant chemotherapy, occurrence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative complications within 90 days, preoperative diabetes mellitus, male sex and portal vein involvement were negative independent predictive factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC of the pancreatic head expected to undergo venous reconstruction should routinely be considered for NAT