Tri-Staple vs Ultrasonic Scalpel in Distal Pancreatectomy (TRUDY). A randomized controlled, multicenter, patient blinded, superiority trial

Background: Several systematic reviews have investigated pancreatic stump management to reduce the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate. The study aimed to evaluate if the parenchymal transection using the triple-row reinforced stapler decreases the incidence of POPF compared with ultrasonic transection after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Methods: a bicentric, phase 3, patient-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted. All patients submitted to elective DP from July 2018 through July 2020 were screened. Exclusion criteria were an extended resection, gastrointestinal resections or anastomoses, and a pancreatic thickness >17 mm measured at the point of parenchymal transection. The experimental group received the Endo GIA Reinforced Reload with Tri-Staple Technology (TS), while the control group the Harmonic Focus (US). Results:A total of 152 patients undergoing DP met the inclusion criteria and were randomized. Due to a positive transection margin on frozen section analysis requiring further resection, seven patients were excluded post-randomization. Therefore, the final population comprised 72 patients in the TS arm and 73 patients in the US arm. Overall, 23 patients (16%) developed POPF. There were 19 grade B (14%) and 4 grade C fistulas (2%). The incidence of POPF was similar between groups (TS 12% vs. US 19%, p=0.191). Conclusion: the present randomized controlled trial of stapled transection using a PGA-reinforced triple-row stapler versus ultrasonic transection with HARMONIC energy devices in elective DP demonstrated no significant difference in POPF rates

Body composition parameters, immunonutritional indexes, and surgical outcome of pancreatic cancer patients resected after neoadjuvant therapy: A retrospective, multicenter analysis

Background and aims: Body composition parameters and immunonutritional indexes provide useful information on the nutritional and inflammatory status of patients. We sought to investigate whether they predict the postoperative outcome in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) who received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and then pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: Data from locally advanced PC patients who underwent NAT followed by pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2012 and December 2019 in four high-volume institutions were collected retrospectively. Only patients with two available CT scans (before and after NAT) and immunonutritional indexes (before surgery) available were included. Body composition was assessed and immunonutritional indexes collected were: VAT, SAT, SMI, SMA, PLR, NLR, LMR, and PNI. The postoperative outcomes evaluated were overall morbidity (any complication occurring), major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), and length of stay. Results: One hundred twenty-one patients met the inclusion criteria and constituted the study population. The median age at the diagnosis was 64 years (IQR16), and the median BMI was 24 kg/m2 (IQR 4.1). The median time between the two CT-scan examined was 188 days (IQR 48). Skeletal muscle index (SMI) decreased after NAT, with a median delta of −7.8 cm2/m2 (p < 0.05). Major complications occurred more frequently in patients with a lower pre-NAT SMI (p = 0.035) and in those who gained in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) compartment during NAT (p = 0.043). Patients with a gain in SMI experienced fewer major postoperative complications (p = 0.002). The presence of Low muscle mass after NAT was associated with a longer hospital stay [Beta 5.1, 95%CI (1.5, 8.7), p = 0.006]. An increase in SMI from 35 to 40 cm2/m2 was a protective factor with respect to overall postoperative complications [OR 0.43, 95% (CI 0.21, 0.86), p < 0.001]. None of the immunonutritional indexes investigated predicted the postoperative outcome. Conclusion: Body composition changes during NAT are associated with surgical outcome in PC patients who receive pancreaticoduodenectomy after NAT. An increase in SMI during NAT should be favored to ameliorate the postoperative outcome. Immunonutritional indexes did not show to be capable of predicting the surgical outcome

Outcomes After Distal Pancreatectomy with Celiac Axis Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: A Pan-European Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Western multicenter studies on distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR), also known as the Appleby procedure, for locally advanced pancreatic cancer are lacking. We aimed to study overall survival, morbidity, mortality and the impact of preoperative hepatic artery embolization (PHAE). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study within the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary-Association, on DP-CAR between 1-1-2000 and 6-1-2016. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were radicality (R0-resection), 90-day mortality, major morbidity, and pancreatic fistulae (grade B/C). RESULTS: We included 68 patients from 20 hospitals in 12 countries. Postoperatively, 53% of patients had R0-resection, 25% major morbidity, 21% an ISGPS grade B/C pancreatic fistula, and 16% mortality. In total, 82% received (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy and median overall survival in 62 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients was 18 months (CI 10-37). We observed no impact of PHAE on ischemic complications. CONCLUSIONS: DP-CAR combined with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with acceptable overall survival. The 90-day mortality is too high and should be reduced. Future studies should investigate to what extent increasing surgical volume or better patient selection can improve outcomes

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

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p &lt; 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p &lt; 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p &lt; 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p &lt; 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p &lt; 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

The role of immune suppression in COVID-19 hospitalization: clinical and epidemiological trends over three years of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

Specific immune suppression types have been associated with a greater risk of severe COVID-19 disease and death. We analyzed data from patients &gt;17 years that were hospitalized for COVID-19 at the “Fondazione IRCCS Ca′ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico” in Milan (Lombardy, Northern Italy). The study included 1727 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients (1,131 males, median age of 65 years) hospitalized between February 2020 and November 2022. Of these, 321 (18.6%, CI: 16.8–20.4%) had at least one condition defining immune suppression. Immune suppressed subjects were more likely to have other co-morbidities (80.4% vs. 69.8%, p &lt; 0.001) and be vaccinated (37% vs. 12.7%, p &lt; 0.001). We evaluated the contribution of immune suppression to hospitalization during the various stages of the epidemic and investigated whether immune suppression contributed to severe outcomes and death, also considering the vaccination status of the patients. The proportion of immune suppressed patients among all hospitalizations (initially stable at &lt;20%) started to increase around December 2021, and remained high (30–50%). This change coincided with an increase in the proportions of older patients and patients with co-morbidities and with a decrease in the proportion of patients with severe outcomes. Vaccinated patients showed a lower proportion of severe outcomes; among non-vaccinated patients, severe outcomes were more common in immune suppressed individuals. Immune suppression was a significant predictor of severe outcomes, after adjusting for age, sex, co-morbidities, period of hospitalization, and vaccination status (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.23–2.19), while vaccination was a protective factor (OR: 0.31; 95% IC: 0.20–0.47). However, after November 2021, differences in disease outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups (for both immune suppressed and immune competent subjects) disappeared. Since December 2021, the spread of the less virulent Omicron variant and an overall higher level of induced and/or natural immunity likely contributed to the observed shift in hospitalized patient characteristics. Nonetheless, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, likely in combination with naturally acquired immunity, effectively reduced severe outcomes in both immune competent (73.9% vs. 48.2%, p &lt; 0.001) and immune suppressed (66.4% vs. 35.2%, p &lt; 0.001) patients, confirming previous observations about the value of the vaccine in preventing serious disease