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

Children Listening to Music or Watching Cartoons during ER Procedures: A RCT

Objective: This study aims to determine if listening to music and watching cartoons are effective to distract children from pain and distress during procedures in the emergency room (ER). Methods: This study is a single-center, 3-armed, superiority randomized controlled trial comparing listening to music, watching cartoons, and standard care during ER procedures in children aged 3-13 years. The primary outcome was pain measured from video footage with the Alder Hey Triage Pain Score (AHTPS). Children older than 4 years self-reported pain with the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). The secondary outcome was distress measured with the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-revised (OSBD-r). Another indicator of distress was heart rate. Results: Data of 191 participants were analyzed for the 3 groups: music (n = 75), cartoon (n = 62), and control (n = 54). The median age was 7.3 years (4.9-9.7). In multivariable analysis, pain assessed with the AHTPS was significantly lower (B = -1.173, 95% confidence interval -1.953, -0.394, p =. 003) in the music group than in the control groups. Across the 3 groups, 108 children self-reported pain with the FPS-R after the procedure. The scores were lowest in the music group, but the differences between groups were not significant (p =. 077). OSBD-r distress scores assigned during the procedures were not significantly different between the 3 groups (p =. 55). Heart rate directly after the procedure was not statistically significantly different between the 3 groups (p =. 83). Conclusions: Listening to recorded music is a beneficial distraction for children experiencing pain during ER procedures, whereas watching cartoons did not seem to reduce pain or distress

Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation.

Background: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. Results: Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. Conclusion: This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate

Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation.

Background Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). Methods An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion >= 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. Results Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. Conclusion This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate

Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation.

Background: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007—December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. Results: Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195–285) vs. 247 min (195–315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188–400) vs. 400 mL (280–550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4–7) vs. 8 days (6–10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. Conclusion: This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate. © 2020, The Author(s)

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization

Background: Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified. Methods: The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented. Results: In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries. Conclusion: Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental