| 1. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- DeAngelis, Nicola, et al.
(författare)
-
2020 WSES guidelines for the detection and management of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy
- 2021
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - : BMC. - 1749-7922. ; 16:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4-1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI.
|
|
| 8. |
- Chen, Jeffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : SPRINGER. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 30, s. 3023-3032
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.MethodsAn international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.ResultsIn total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.ConclusionsIn selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Giani, Alessandro, et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 109:11, s. 1124-1130
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, applying the Achievable Benchmark of Care method. This method of assessing outcomes should positively encourage comparisons, allowing single surgeons or entire units to anonymously and individually recognize what works well and where there might be room for improvement. Background Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS). Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC (TM)) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk. Results A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m(2) (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87). Conclusion The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.
|
|
