| 1. |
- Gleeson, Elizabeth M., et al.
(författare)
-
Failure to Rescue After Pancreatoduodenectomy : A Transatlantic Analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 274:3, s. 459-466
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy across the Atlantic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: FTR, or mortality after development of a major complication, is a quality metric originally created to compare hospital results. FTR has been studied in North American and Northern European patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, a direct comparison of FTR after PD between North America and Northern Europe has not been performed. METHODS: Patients who underwent PD in North America, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany (GAPASURG dataset) were identified from their respective registries (2014-17). Patients who developed a major complication defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥3 or developed a grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were included. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between patients with and without FTR. Variables significant on univariable analysis were entered into a logistic regression for FTR. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 6188 of 22,983 patients (26.9%) after PD, and 504 (8.1%) patients had FTR. North American and Northern European patients with complications differed, and rates of FTR were lower in North America (5.4% vs 12%, P < 0.001). Fourteen factors from univariable analysis contributing to differences in patients who developed FTR were included in a logistic regression. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with FTR were age, American Society of Anesthesiology ≥3, Northern Europe, POPF, organ failure, life-threatening complication, nonradiologic intervention, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with severe systemic diseases are more difficult to rescue. Failure to rescue is more common in Northern Europe than North America. In stable patients, management of complications by interventional radiology is preferred over reoperation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Korrel, Maarten, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1365-182X .- 1477-2574. ; 23:3, s. 323-330
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo > III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups. Results: A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups. Conclusion: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.
|
|
| 3. |
- Latenstein, Anouk E.J., et al.
(författare)
-
The use and clinical outcome of total pancreatectomy in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Surgery (United States). - : Elsevier BV. - 0039-6060. ; 170:2, s. 563-570
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Total pancreatectomy has high morbidity and mortality and differences among countries are currently unknown. This study compared the use and postoperative outcomes of total pancreatectomy among 4 Western countries. Methods: Patients who underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy were included from registries in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014–2018). Use of total pancreatectomy was assessed by calculating the ratio total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy. Primary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien Dindo ≥3) and in-hospital mortality. Predictors for the primary outcomes were assessed in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of volume (low-volume <40 or high-volume ≥40 pancreatoduodenectomies annually; data available for the Netherlands and Germany). Results: In total, 1,579 patients underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy. The relative use of total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy varied up to fivefold (United States 0.03, Germany 0.15, the Netherlands 0.03, and Sweden 0.15; P <.001). Both the indication and several baseline characteristics differed significantly among countries. Major morbidity occurred in 423 patients (26.8%) and differed (22.3%, 34.9%, 38.3%, and 15.9%, respectively; P <.001). In-hospital mortality occurred in 85 patients (5.4%) and also differed (1.8%, 10.2%, 10.8%, 1.9%, respectively; P <.001). Country, age ≥75, and vascular resection were predictors for in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was lower in high-volume centers in the Netherlands (4.9% vs 23.1%; P =.002), but not in Germany (9.8% vs 10.6%; P =.733). Conclusion: Considerable differences in the use of total pancreatectomy, patient characteristics, and postoperative outcome were noted among 4 Western countries with better outcomes in the United States and Sweden. These large, yet unexplained, differences require further research to ultimately improve patient outcome.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Hilst, Jony, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BMC. - 1745-6215. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP. Methods/design: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin >= 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (alpha), 80% power (1-beta), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Discussion: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.
|
|
