Higher levels of CO2 during late incubation alter the hatch time of chicken embryos

status: publishe

The effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on postoperative cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers in pancreatic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers have been associated with adverse outcome after major abdominal surgery. This study investigated the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) on perioperative concentrations of high-sensitive cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T and interleukin (IL) 6. Methods: Adult patients scheduled for elective pancreatic surgery between March 2017 and February 2019 were randomized to either three cycles of upper-limb ischaemia and reperfusion (each 5 min) or a sham procedure before surgery. The primary endpoint was the maximum postoperative hs-cTnT concentration within 48 h after surgery. Secondary endpoints were postoperative myocardial injury (PMI), defined as an absolute increase of hs-cTnT of at least 14 ng/l above baseline concentration, maximum concentration of IL-6 within 48 h after surgery and postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery. Results: Of 99 eligible patients, 46 underwent RIPC and 46 a sham procedure. RIPC did not reduce the maximum hs-cTnT concentration after surgery (12.6 ng/l RIPC, 16.6 ng/l controls, P=0.225), nor did it lessen the incidence of PMI (15/45 RIPC, 18/45 controls, P=0.375). The maximum postoperative IL-6 concentration was 265 pg/ml after RIPC versus 385 pg/ml in controls (P=0.108). Postoperative complications occurred in 23 RIPC and 24 control patients respectively. Conclusions: Remote ischaemic preconditioning did not reduce the maximum postoperative hs-cTnT concentration. Postoperative myocardial injury, IL-6 concentrations and postoperative complications were similar between RIPC patients and controls

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy:a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis

Background: Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Methods: This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.Results: From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P=0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P=0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).Conclusion: Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Surgical oncolog

The Effect of Radiation Treatment of Solid Tumors on Neutrophil Infiltration and Function: A Systematic Review

Radiation therapy (RT) initiates a local and systemic immune response which can induce antitumor immunity and improve immunotherapy efficacy. Neutrophils are among the first immune cells that infiltrate tumors after RT and are suggested to be essential for the initial antitumor immune response. However, neutrophils in tumors are associated with poor outcomes and RT-induced neutrophil infiltration could also change the composition of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in favor of tumor progression. To improve RT efficacy for patients with cancer it is important to understand the interplay between RT and neutrophils. Here, we review the literature on how RT affects the infiltration and function of neutrophils in the TME of solid tumors, using both patients studies and preclinical murine in vivo models. In general, it was found that neutrophil levels increase and reach maximal levels in the first days after RT and can remain elevated up to 3 weeks. Most studies report an immunosuppressive role of neutrophils in the TME after RT, caused by upregulated expression of neutrophil indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 and arginase 1, as well as neutrophil extracellular trap formation. RT was also associated with increased reactive oxygen species production by neutrophils, which can both improve and inhibit antitumor immunity. In addition, multiple murine models showed improved RT efficacy when depleting neutrophils, suggesting that neutrophils have a protumor phenotype after RT. We conclude that the role of neutrophils should not be overlooked when developing RT strategies and requires further investigation in specific tumor types. In addition, neutrophils can possibly be exploited to enhance RT efficacy by combining RT with neutrophil-targeting therapies

Surgical Outcome of Children with a Malignant Liver Tumour in The Netherlands:A Retrospective Consecutive Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: Six to eight children are diagnosed with a malignant liver tumour yearly in the Netherlands. The majority of these tumours are hepatoblastoma (HB) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for which radical resection, often in combination with chemotherapy, is the only curative treatment option. We investigated the surgical outcome of children with a malignant liver tumour in a consecutive cohort in the Netherlands. METHODS: In this nationwide, retrospective observational study, all patients (age < 18 years) diagnosed with a malignant liver tumour, who underwent partial liver resection or orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) between January 2014 and April 2021, were included. Children with a malignant liver tumour who were not eligible for surgery were excluded from the analysis. Data regarding tumour characteristics, diagnostics, treatment, complications and survival were collected. Outcomes included major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) within 90 days and disease-free survival. The results of the HB group were compared to those of a historical HB cohort. RESULTS: Twenty-six children were analysed, of whom fourteen (54%) with HB (median age 21.5 months), ten (38%) with HCC (median age 140 months) and one with sarcoma and a CNSET. Thirteen children with HB (93%) and three children with HCC (30%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Partial hepatic resection was possible in 19 patients (12 HB, 6 HCC, and 1 sarcoma), whilst 7 children required OLT (2 HB, 4 HCC, and 1 CNSET). Radical resection (R0, margin ≥ 1.0 mm) was obtained in 24 out of 26 patients, with recurrence only in the patient with CNSET. The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (HB 40 months, HCC 40 months). Major complications occurred in 9 out of 26 patients (35% in all, 4 of 14, 29% for HB). There was no 30- or 90-day mortality, with disease-free survival after surgery of 100% for HB and 80% for HCC, respectively. Results showed a tendency towards a better outcome compared to the historic cohort, but numbers were too small to reach significance. CONCLUSION: Survival after surgical treatment for malignant liver tumours in the Netherlands is excellent. Severe surgical complications arise in one-third of patients, but most resolve without long-term sequelae and have no impact on long-term survival

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011)

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day FitbitTM measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe:a registry-based retrospective study A critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P &lt;0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P &lt;0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.</p