| 1. |
- Asbun, H.J., et al.
(författare)
-
The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 271:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this 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, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. 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: The 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. © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Balduzzi, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : SPRINGER. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 35:12, s. 6949-6959
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. Methods An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. Results Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade >= III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. Conclusion The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- van Hilst, Jony, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 269:1, s. 10-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC.Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60–400) vs 300 mL (150–500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6–12) vs 9 (7–14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8–22) vs 22 (14–31), P< 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22–34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26–36) months (P = 0.929).Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.
|
|
| 9. |
- de Muynck, Ldan, et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus Statement on the Use of Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging during Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Based on a Delphi Study: Surgeons' Perspectives on Current Use and Future Recommendations
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6694. ; 15:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Simple Summary Despite the potential of fluorescence imaging during pancreatic cancer surgery, more research is needed to facilitate the approval of tumor-targeted probes, standardize imaging techniques, and most importantly, gain trust from surgeons. Despite advancements in the development of novel probes, preclinical research settings do not always accurately represent the surgical setting. This first-of-its-kind Delphi consensus survey highlights current experiences and attitudes towards fluorescence imaging during pancreatic cancer surgery, specifically from surgeon's perspectives. The results from this consensus survey highlight potential new directions for future research, which could facilitate the standardized use of fluorescence imaging during pancreatic surgery. Indocyanine green (ICG) is one of the only clinically approved near-infrared (NIR) fluorophores used during fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS), but it lacks tumor specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Several tumor-targeted fluorescent probes have been evaluated in PDAC patients, yet no uniformity or consensus exists among the surgical community on the current and future needs of FGS during PDAC surgery. In this first-published consensus report on FGS for PDAC, expert opinions were gathered on current use and future recommendations from surgeons' perspectives. A Delphi survey was conducted among international FGS experts via Google Forms. Experts were asked to anonymously vote on 76 statements, with >= 70% agreement considered consensus and >= 80% participation/statement considered vote robustness. Consensus was reached for 61/76 statements. All statements were considered robust. All experts agreed that FGS is safe with few drawbacks during PDAC surgery, but that it should not yet be implemented routinely for tumor identification due to a lack of PDAC-specific NIR tracers and insufficient evidence proving FGS's benefit over standard methods. However, aside from tumor imaging, surgeons suggest they would benefit from visualizing vasculature and surrounding anatomy with ICG during PDAC surgery. Future research could also benefit from identifying neuroendocrine tumors. More research focusing on standardization and combining tumor identification and vital-structure imaging would greatly improve FGS's use during PDAC surgery.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
