Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is unknown whether the clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is comparable with that after open distal pancreatectomy. We aimed to compare not only the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but more importantly, also its clinical impact. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial investigating a possible beneficial impact of a fibrin patch on the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) after distal pancreatectomy. Primary outcomes of the current analysis are the incidence and clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after both minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: From October 2010 to August 2017, 252 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were randomized, and data of 247 patients were available for analysis: 87 minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and 160 open distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy (28.7% vs 16.9%, P = .029). More patients were discharged with an abdominal surgical drain after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy (30/87, 34.5% vs 26/160, 16.5%, P = .001). In patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula, additional percutaneous catheter drainage procedures were performed less often (52% vs 84.6%, P = .012), with fewer drainage procedures (median [range], 2 [1-4] vs 2, [1-7], P = .014) after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy, whereas the clinical impact was less

Preperitoneal or Subcutaneous Wound Catheters as Alternative for Epidural Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the location of wound catheters (ie, preperitoneal vs. subcutaneous) impacts outcomes, when compared with alternatives such as epidural analgesia. BACKGROUND: Continuous wound infiltration is an alternative for epidural analgesia in abdominal surgery but studies have shown conflicting results. This difference could be explained by different efficacy of preperitoneal versus subcutaneous placement of the infiltrative catheters. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines until April 3, 2017. Primary endpoints were pain scores in rest and when moving at 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included postoperative pain scores at 12 and 48 hours, functional recovery, pain treatment-related complications, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: After screening 2283 studies, 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2059 patients were included. Methodological quality of these RCTs ranged from moderate to high. In the one direct comparison (60 patients), preperitoneal catheters led to better pain control than subcutaneous catheters. Superiority of preperitoneal compared with subcutaneous placement was confirmed indirectly in placebo-controlled RCTs. Preperitoneal wound catheters provided comparable pain control compared with active controls, such as epidural analgesia. Recovery parameters, opioid consumption, incidence of hypotension, and patient satisfaction seemed to be in favor of preperitoneal wound catheters compared with active alternatives, as well as placebo. CONCLUSION: Continuous wound infiltration with preperitoneal wound catheters is an effective pain modality in abdominal surgery. Pain control is as effective as epidural analgesia, but could be favored based upon recovery parameters and patient satisfaction

External validation and comparison of the original, alternative and updated-alternative fistula risk scores for the prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy

Background: Many postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) predictions models were developed and validated in western populations. Direct use of these models in the large Indian/Asian population, however, requires proper validation. Objective: To validate the original, alternative and updated alternative fistula risk score (FRS) models. Methods: A validation study was performed in consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) from January 2011 to March 2018. The area under the receiver operating curve (ROC) and calibration plots were used to assess the performance of original-FRS (o-FRS), alternative FRS (a-FRS) and updated alternative FRS (ua-FRS) models. Results: This cohort consisted of 825 patients of which 66% were males with a median age of 55 years and mean body mass index of 22.6. The majority of tumors (61.8%) were of periampullary origin. Clinically relevant POPF was observed in 16.8% patients. Area under curve (AUC) of ROC for the o-FRS was 0.65, 0.69 for a-FRS and 0.70 for ua-FRS, respectively (p = 0.006). Conclusions: In this large Indian cohort of predominantly periampullary tumors, the ua-FRS performed better than the a-FRS and o-FRS, although differences were small. Since the AUC value of the ua-FRS is at the accepted threshold there might be room for improvement for a FRS

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial

Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has become increasingly popular in recent years as an alternative to epidural analgesia. As catheters are not placed until the end of surgery, more intraoperative opioid analgesics might be needed. We, therefore, added a single pre-peritoneal bolus of bupivacaine at the start of laparotomy, similar to the bolus given with epidural analgesia. This was a comparative study within a randomized controlled trial (NTR4948). Patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery received either a pre-peritoneal bolus of 30ml bupivacaine 0.25%, or an epidural bolus of 10ml bupivacaine 0.25% at the start of laparotomy. In a subgroup of patients, we sampled blood and determined bupivacaine serum levels 20, 40, 60 and 80 minutes after bolus injection. We assumed toxicity of bupivacaine to be >1000 ng/ml. A total of 20 patients participated in this sub-study. All plasma levels measured as well as the upper limit of the predicted 99% confidence intervals per time point were well below the toxicity limit. In a mixed linear-effect model both groups did not differ statistically significant (p = 0.131). The intra-operative use of opioids was higher with CWI as compared to epidural (86 (SD 73) μg sufentanil vs. 50 (SD 32). In this exploratory study, the pre-peritoneal bolus using bupivacaine resulted in serum bupivacaine concentrations well below the commonly accepted toxic threshold. With CWI more additional analgesics are needed intraoperatively as compared to epidural analgesia, although this is compensated by a reduction in use of vasopressors with CWI. Netherlands Trial Register NTR494