Mohammad Abu Hilal

Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka.

OBJECTIVE This review aims to assess the impact of implementing dedicated emergency surgical services, in particular acute care surgery, on clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND The optimal model for delivering high-quality emergency surgical care remains unknown. Acute Care Surgery (ACS) is a health care model combining emergency general surgery, trauma, and critical care. It has been adopted across the United States in the management of surgical emergencies. METHOD A systematic review was performed after PRISMA recommendations using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Psych-Info databases. Studies assessing different care models and institutional factors affecting the delivery of emergency general surgery were included. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies comprising 744,238 patients were included in this review. In studies comparing ACS with traditional practice, mortality and morbidity were improved. Moreover, time to senior review, delays to operating theater, and financial expenditure were often reduced. The elements of ACS models varied but included senior clinicians present onsite during office hours and dedicated to emergency care while on-call. Referrals were made to specialist centers with primary surgical assessments taking place on surgical admissions units rather than in the emergency department. Twenty-four-hour access to dedicated emergency operating rooms was also described. CONCLUSIONS ACS models as well as centralized units and hospitals with dedicated emergency operating rooms, access to radiology and intensive care facilities (ITU) are all factors associated with improved clinical and financial outcomes in the delivery of emergency general surgery. There is, however, no consensus on the elements that constitute an ideal ACS model and how it can be implemented into current surgical practice.

The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After

Background. In 2005, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula developed a definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula that has been accepted universally. Eleven years later, because postoperative pancreatic fistula remains one of the most relevant and harmful complications of pancreatic operation, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification has become the gold standard in defining postoperative pancreatic fistula in clinical practice. The aim of the present report is to verify the value of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula and to update the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification in light of recent evidence that has emerged, as well as to address the lingering controversies about the original definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Methods. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula reconvened as the International Study Group in Pancreatic Surgery in order to perform a review of the recent literature and consequently to update and revise the grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Results. Based on the literature since 2005 investigating the validity and clinical use of the original International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification, a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula is now redefined as a drain output of any measurable volume of fluid with an amylase level >3 times the upper limit of institutional normal serum amylase activity, associated with a clinically relevant development/condition related directly to the postoperative pancreatic fistula. Consequently, the former “grade A postoperative pancreatic fistula” is now redefined and called a “biochemical leak,” because it has no clinical importance and is no longer referred to a true pancreatic fistula. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C are confirmed but defined more strictly. In particular, grade B requires a change in the postoperative management; drains are either left in place >3 weeks or repositioned through endoscopic or percutaneous procedures. Grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula refers to those postoperative pancreatic fistula that require reoperation or lead to single or multiple organ failure and/or mortality attributable to the pancreatic fistula. Conclusion. This new definition and grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula should lead to a more universally consistent evaluation of operative outcomes after pancreatic operation and will allow for a better comparison of techniques used to mitigate the rate and clinical impact of a pancreatic fistula. Use of this updated classification will also allow for more precise comparisons of surgical quality between surgeons and units who perform pancreatic surgery.

Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a feasible alternative to open liver resection (OLR) in selected patients. Nevertheless studies comparing LLR and OLR are few and concerns remain about long-term oncological equivalence. The present study compares outcomes with LLR vs. OLR using meta-analytical methods. METHODS Electronic literature searches were conducted to identify studies comparing LLR and OLR. Short-term outcomes evaluated included operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative morbidity and resection margin status. Longer-term outcomes included local and distant recurrence, and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and Cohens d method, with results expressed as odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria with a population of 1678 patients. LLR resulted in longer operating time, but reduced blood loss, portal clamp time, overall and liver-specific complications, ileus and length of stay. No difference was found between LLR and OLR for oncological outcomes. DISCUSSION LLR has short-term advantages and seemingly equivalent long-term outcomes and can be considered a feasible alternative to open surgery in experienced hands.

Portal Vein Resection in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A United Kingdom Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND Until recently, in the United Kingdom, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with invasion into the portomesenteric veins often resulted in surgical bypass because of the presumed high risk for complications and the uncertainty of a survival benefit associated with a vascular resection. Portomesenteric vein resection has therefore remained controversial. We present the second largest published cohort of patients undergoing portal vein resection for borderline resectable (T3) adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. STUDY DESIGN This is a UK multicenter retrospective cohort study comparing pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection (PDVR), standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), and surgical bypass (SB). Nine high-volume UK centers contributed. All consecutive patients with T3 (stage IIA to III) adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas undergoing surgery between December 1998 and June 2011 were included. The primary outcomes measures are overall survival and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes measure is operative morbidity. RESULTS One thousand five hundred and eighty-eight patients underwent surgery for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; 840 PD, 230 PDVR, and 518 SB. Of 230 PDVR patients, 129 had primary closure (56%), 65 had end to end anastomosis (28%), and 36 had interposition grafts (16%). Both resection groups had greater complication rates than the bypass group, but with no difference between PD and PDVR. In-hospital mortality was similar across all 3 surgical groups. Median survival was 18 months for PD, 18.2 months for PDVR, and 8 months for SB (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This study, the second largest to date on borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, demonstrates no significant difference in perioperative mortality in the 3 groups and a similar overall survival between PD and PDVR; significantly better compared with SB.

Scoring System to Predict Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A UK Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE To validate a preoperative predictive score of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Other risk factors for POPF were sought in an attempt to improve the score. BACKGROUND POPF is the major contributor to morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). A preoperative score [using body mass index (BMI) and pancreatic duct width] to predict POPF was tested upon a multicenter patient cohort to assess its performance. METHODS Patients undergoing PD at 8 UK centers were identified. The association between the score and other pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables with POPF was assessed. RESULTS A total of 630 patients underwent PD with 141 occurrences of POPF (22.4%). BMI, perirenal fat thickness, pancreatic duct width on computed tomography and at operation, bilirubin, pancreatojejunostomy technique, underlying pathology, T stage, N stage, R status, and gland firmness were all significantly associated with POPF. The score predicted POPF (P < 0.001) with a higher predictive score associated with increasing severity of POPF (P < 0.001). Stepwise multivariate analysis of pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables demonstrated that only the score was consistently associated with POPF. A table correlating the risk score to actual risk of POPF was created. CONCLUSIONS The predictive score performed well and could not be improved. This provides opportunities for individualizing patient consent and selection, and treatment and research applications.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Based Analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes

Objective: This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly. Background: Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients. Method: Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups. Results: A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age. Conclusions: In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: Current concepts

The minimally invasive approach has been slow to gain acceptance in the field of pancreatic surgery even though its advantages over the open approach have been extensively documented in the medical literature. The reasons for the reluctant use of the technique are manifold. Laparoscopic distal or left sided pancreatic resections have slowly become the standard approach to lesions of the pancreatic body and tail as a result of evolution in technology and experience. A number of studies have shown the potential advantages of the technique in terms of safety, blood loss, oncological and economic feasibility, hospital stay and time to recovery from surgery. This review aims to provide an overview of the recent advances in the field of laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and discuss potential future developments.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the specialitys continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer.

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive (MI) pancreatic surgery appears to be gaining popularity, but its implementation throughout Europe and the opinions regarding its use in pancreatic cancer patients are unknown. METHODS A 30-question survey was sent between June and December 2014 to pancreatic surgeons of the European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and 5 European national pancreatic societies. Incomplete responses were excluded. RESULTS In total, 237 pancreatic surgeons responded. After excluding 34 incomplete responses, 203 responses from 27 European countries were included. 164 (81%) surgeons were employed at a university hospital, 184 (91%) performed advanced MI surgery and 148 (73%) performed MI distal pancreatectomy. MI pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by 42 (21%) surgeons, whereas 9 (4.4%) surgeons had performed more than 10 procedures. Robot-assisted MI pancreatic surgery was performed by 28 (14%) surgeons. 63 (31%) surgeons expected MI distal pancreatectomy for cancer to be inferior to open distal pancreatectomy concerning oncological outcomes. 151 (74%) surgeons expected to benefit from training in MI distal pancreatectomy and 149 (73%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial on this topic. CONCLUSIONS MI distal pancreatectomy is a common procedure, although its use for cancer is still disputed. MI pancreatoduodenectomy is still an uncommon procedure. Specific training and a randomized trial regarding MI pancreatic cancer surgery are welcomed.