Gastro- or Duodenojejunostomy Leaks After Pancreatoduodenectomy: Single Center Experience and Narrative Literature Review

Background and Methods - Gastro- or duodenojejunostomy leaks after pancreatoduodenectomy is rare. This study aims to analyze the incidence, management, and outcome of gastro- or duodenojejunostomy leaks after pancreatoduodenectomy based on a single center experience from 2004 to 2020 with a narrative literature review. Results - Of a total of 1494 pancreatoduodenectomies, eight patients with gastrojejunostomy (n=1) or duodenojejunostomy (n=7) leak were identified from the institutional pancreatic database. All leaks were treated operatively. In two patients dismantling of the duodenojejunostomy, distal gastrectomy, and closure of the pyloric and jejunal side, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and a feeding jejunostomy ultimately had to be performed after an unsuccessful attempt of gastrojejunostomy and suture of the duodenojejunostomy, respectively. The literature search revealed three more studies specifically addressing this complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (36 patients of a total of 4739 pancreatoduodenectomies). Based on an analysis of the current study and the literature review, the overall incidence of gastro- or duodenojejunostomy leaks after pancreatoduodenectomy was 0.71 % (44/6233 pancreatoduodenectomies). The occurrence of a gastro- or duodenojejunostomy leak was associated with a concomitant postoperative pancreatic fistula in 50 % of the cases, an increased length of hospital stay, and a mortality rate of 15.9 %. Surgical treatment was performed in 84 % of the cases. Conclusion - Gastro- or duodenojejunostomy leak is a rare complication after pancreatoduodenectomy. Prompt diagnosis and early repair is important. In most cases, a surgical intervention is necessary for a good outcome. Under salvage conditions, a bailout strategy may be to temporarily dismantle the gastro- or duodenojejunal anastomosis

The Role of Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Pancreatectomy: a Norwegian Nationwide Cohort Study

Background and purpose Preoperative infammatory markers, such as Glasgow prognostic score, modifed Glasgow prognostic score and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, were shown to be associated with prognosis in patients undergoing pancreatectomy for cancer. However, little is known about their predictive role in a Western population. Methods The Norwegian National Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NORGAST) was used to capture all pancreatectomies performed within the study period (November 2015—April 2021). The association between the preoperative infammatory markers and postoperative outcomes was studied. Their impact on survival was examined in patients operated for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Results A total of 1554 patients underwent pancreatectomy in this period. Glasgow prognostic score, modifed Glasgow prognostic score and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio were associated with severe complications (Accordion grade≥III) in the univariable but not in the multivariable analysis. C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, but not Glasgow prognostic score and modifed Glasgow prognostic score, was linked to survival following pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. In the multivariable model, age, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, ECOG score, C-reactive protein to albumin ratio and total pancreatectomy correlated with survival. Also, preoperative C-reactive protein to albumin ratio was signifcantly associated with survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. Conclusions Preoperative Glasgow prognostic score, modifed Glasgow prognostic score and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio have no role in predicting the complications after pancreatectomy. C-reactive protein to albumin ratio is a signifcant predictor for survival in ductal adenocarcinoma, yet its clinical relevance should be explored in conjunction with the pathology parameters and adjuvant therapy

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

Simultaneous Resection of Primary Colorectal Cancer and Synchronous Liver Metastases: Contemporary Practice, Evidence and Knowledge Gaps

The timing of surgical resection of synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer has been debated for decades. Several strategies have been proposed, but high-level evidence remains scarce. Simultaneous resection of the primary tumour and liver metastases has been described in numerous retrospective audits and meta-analyses. The potential benefits of simultaneous resections are the eradication of the tumour burden in one procedure, overall shorter procedure time, reduced hospital stay with the likely benefits on quality of life and an expected reduction in the use of health care services compared to staged procedures. However, concerns about accumulating complications and oncological outcomes remain and the optimal selection criteria for whom simultaneous resections are beneficial remains undetermined. Based on the current level of evidence, simultaneous resection should be restricted to patients with a limited liver tumour burden. More high-level evidence studies are needed to evaluate the quality of life, complication burden, oncological outcomes, as well as overall health care implications for simultaneous resections

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

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 p  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