Risk factors for complications after surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The choice for the type of procedure is influenced by the expected oncological benefit and the anticipated risk of procedure-specific complications. Few studies have focused on complications in these patients. This cohort study aimed to assess complications and risk factors after resections of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor were identified within 2 centers of excellence. Complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Logistic regression was performed to compare surgical procedures with adjustment for potential confounders (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 123 patients, including 12 enucleations, 50 distal pancreatectomies, 51 pancreatoduodenectomies, and 10 total/combined pancreatectomies. Mortality was 0.8%, a severe complication occurred in 41.5%, and the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.0%. The median comprehensive complication index was 22.6 (0-100); the comprehensive complication index increased after more extensive resections. After adjustment, a pancreatoduodenectomy, as compared to a distal pancreatectomy, increased the risk for a severe complication (odds ratio 3.13 [95% confidence interval 1.32-7.41]). Of the patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 or von Hippel-Lindau, 51.9% developed a severe complication vs 38.5% with sporadic disease. After major resections, morbidity was significantly higher in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau (comprehensive complication index 45.1 vs 28.9, P = .029). CONCLUSION: Surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is associated with a high rate of complications but low failure-to-rescue in centers of excellence. Complications are procedure-specific. Major resections in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau appear to increase the risk of complications

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Abandoning Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Hepatic Surgery: 10 Years of No-Drain Policy in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Environment

Background: Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after hepatic surgery is still being debated, as it may be unnecessary, possibly harmful, and uncomfortable for patients. This study evaluated the safety of a no-drain policy after liver resection within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme. Methods: All hepatectomies performed without prophylactic drainage during 2005-2014 were included. Primary end points were resection-surface-related (RSR) morbidity, defined as the presence of postoperative biloma, hemorrhage or abscess, and reinterventions. Secondary end points were length of stay, total postoperative morbidity, the composite end point of liver surgery-specific complications, readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Uni-and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for RSR morbidity. A systematic search was performed to compare the results of this study to literature. Results: A total of 538 resections were included in the study. The RSR complication and reintervention rate was 15 and 12%, respectively. Major liver resection (>= 3 segments) was an independent risk factor for the development of RSR morbidity (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.61-5.62; p = 0.001) and need for RSR reintervention (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.73; p = 0.001). Conclusion: RSR morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates after liver surgery without prophylactic drainage in patients, treated within an ERAS programme, were comparable to previously published data. A no-drain policy after partial hepatectomy seems safe and feasible

Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Netherlands:How Far Are We?

Background: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review on the introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands, to investigate the initial experience with laparoscopic liver resections and to report on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands. Methods: A systematic literature search of laparoscopic liver resections in the Netherlands was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE. Analysis of initial experience with laparoscopic liver surgery was performed by case-control comparison of patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy matched with patients undergoing the open procedure in the Netherlands between the years 2000 and 2008. Furthermore, a nationwide survey was conducted in 2011 on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery. Results: The systematic review revealed only 6 Dutch reports on actual laparoscopic liver surgery. Matched case-control comparison showed significant differences in the length of hospital stay, blood loss and operation time. Complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (26 vs. 21%). The 2011 survey showed that 21 centers in the Netherlands performed formal liver resections and that 49 (5% of total) laparoscopic liver resections were performed in 2010. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed that very few laparoscopic liver resections were performed in the Netherlands in the previous millennium. The matched case-control comparison of laparoscopic and open left lateral resection showed a reduction in hospital length of stay with comparable morbidity. The laparoscopic technique has been slowly adopted in the Netherlands, but its popularity seems to increase in recent years. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Is Current Perioperative Practice in Hepatic Surgery Based on Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Principles?

Contains fulltext : 138363.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: The worldwide introduction of multimodal enhanced recovery programs has also changed perioperative care in patients who undergo liver resection. This study was performed to assess current perioperative practice in liver surgery in 11 European HPB centers and compare it to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. METHODS: In each unit, 15 consecutive patients (N = 165) who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Compliance was classified as "full," "partial," or "poor" whenever >/= 80, >/= 50, or <50 % of the 22 ERAS protocol core items were met. The primary study end point was overall compliance with the ERAS core program per unit and per perioperative phase. RESULTS: Most patients were operated on for malignancy (91 %) and 56 % were minor hepatectomies. The median number of implemented ERAS core items was 9 (range = 7-12) across all centers. Compliance was partial in the preoperative (median 2 of 3 items, range = 1-3) and perioperative phases (median 5 of 10 items, range: 4-7). Median postoperative compliance was poor (median 2 of 9 items, range = 0-4). A statistically significant difference was observed between median length of stay and median time to recovery (7 vs. 5 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative care among centers that perform liver resections varied substantially. In current HPB surgical practice, some elements of the ERAS program, e.g., preoperative counselling and minimal fasting, have already been implemented. Elements in the perioperative phase (avoidance of drains and nasogastric tube) and postoperative phase (early resumption of oral intake, early mobilization, and use of recovery criteria) should be further optimized

Open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery ERAS(R) programme (ORANGE II-trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 108907.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial. METHODS: Patients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and alpha = 0.05 (two-tailed)).The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

Background: Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided. Methods: In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18–80 years with a BMI of 18–35 kg/m2 and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery. Results: Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3–5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3–3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3–3) days for ONR versus 3 (3–4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates. Conclusion: This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov)