The miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection

© 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objective: The aim of tis study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: These IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery

Splenic preservation versus splenectomy in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND The laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy is associated with higher rates of splenic preservation compared to open surgery. Although favorable postoperative short-term outcomes have been reported in open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy when compared to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, it is unclear whether this observation applies to the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). STUDY DESIGN This is a UK wide, propensity score-matched study, including patients who underwent LSPDP or LDPS between 2006 and 2016. Short-term outcomes were compared between LSPDP and LDPS according to intention to treat. Additionally, risk factors for unplanned splenectomy were explored. RESULTS A total of 456 patients were included from eleven centers (229 LSPDP and 227 LDPS). We were able to match 173 LSPDP cases to 173 LDPS cases, according to intention to treat. No differences were seen in postoperative morbidity between the groups. The only identified risk factor for unplanned splenectomy was tumor size ≥ 30 mm. CONCLUSIONS Preserving the spleen during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is not associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to sacrificing the spleen. Tumor size is a risk factor for unplanned splenectomy

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background: A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised. Discussion: The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917. Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion. Protocol version: version 12, May 9, 2017

Gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy in subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma: international propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND: Whether patients who undergo resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma have a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare survival between patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma in a propensity score-matched analysis.METHODS: An international multicentre cohort study was conducted, including patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2017, in 13 centres in six countries. Propensity scores were used to match patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not, in the entire cohort and in two subgroups (pancreatobiliary/mixed and intestinal subtypes). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses.RESULTS: Overall, 1163 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma. After excluding 187 patients, median survival in the remaining 976 patients was 67 (95 per cent c.i. 56 to 78) months. A total of 520 patients (53·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemotherapy. In a propensity score-matched cohort (194 patients in each group), survival was better among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy than in those who did not (median survival not reached versus 60 months respectively; P = 0·051). A survival benefit was seen in patients with the pancreatobiliary/mixed subtype; median survival was not reached in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and 32 months in the group without chemotherapy (P = 0·020). Patients with the intestinal subtype did not show any survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.CONCLUSION: Patients with resected ampullary adenocarcinoma may benefit from gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy, but this effect may be reserved for those with the pancreatobiliary and/or mixed subtype.</p

Gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy in subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma: international propensity score-matched cohort study

Background: Whether patients who undergo resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma have a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare survival between patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma in a propensity score-matched analysis. Methods: An international multicentre cohort study was conducted, including patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2017, in 13 centres in six countries. Propensity scores were used to match patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not, in the entire cohort and in two subgroups (pancreatobiliary/mixed and intestinal subtypes). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analyses. Results: Overall, 1163 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma. After excluding 187 patients, median survival in the remaining 976 patients was 67 (95 per cent c.i. 56 to 78) months. A total of 520 patients (53·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemotherapy. In a propensity score-matched cohort (194 patients in each group), survival was better among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy than in those who did not (median survival not reached versus 60 months respectively; P = 0·051). A survival benefit was seen in patients with the pancreatobiliary/mixed subtype; median survival was not reached in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and 32 months in the group without chemotherapy (P = 0·020). Patients with the intestinal subtype did not show any survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusion: Patients with resected ampullary adenocarcinoma may benefit from gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy, but this effect may be reserved for those with the pancreatobiliary and/or mixed subtype

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background: A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised. Discussion: The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917. Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion. Protocol version: version 12, May 9, 2017