Asbun, Horacio J.

The objective of this study was to examine whether preoperative recommendation for specific reductions in body mass index (BMI) influenced weight loss in obese surgical patients. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 48 patients who enrolled between January 2007 to June 2010 in an 800-calorie per day liquid meal replacement (LMR) weight loss program. Of these, 9 patients (surgical group) enrolled as a result of general surgeon-directed weight loss to enable nonbariatric surgery and 39 enrolled seeking weight loss (medical group). Patients enrolled in the LMR program before bariatric surgery were excluded from analysis. All patients were seen in the setting of a comprehensive weight loss program supervised by a medical bariatrician and followed for a period of 4 months. There were no significant differences in mean initial BMI between surgical and medical patients (41.7 ± 4.55 and 41.6 ± 8.54 kg/m 2 , respectively) or participation time in the weight loss program (120 days vs 133 days). Of the nine surgical patients, only five (56%) reached their weight goal and underwent the planned surgical procedure. Weight loss was significantly less in the surgical compared with medical patients (BMI reduction 4.03 ± 3.99 vs 7.75 ± 4.90 kg/m 2 , respectively; P < 0.05). Weight loss was significantly lower in patients directed to undergo BMI reduction to enable a general surgical procedure. Future studies are needed to assess factors influencing weight loss (metabolism, exercise capacity, motivation) in patients requiring weight loss to enable a surgical procedure.

Objective: This study aims to present a full spectrum of individual patient presentations of pancreatic fistula risk, and to define the utility of mitigation strategies amongst some of the most prevalent, and vulnerable scenarios surgeons encounter. Background: The FRS has been utilized to identify technical strategies associated with reduced CR-POPF incidence across various risk strata. However, risk-stratification using the FRS has never been investigated with greater granularity. By deriving all possible combinations of FRS elements, individualized risk assessment could be utilized for precision medicine purposes. Methods: FRS profiles and outcomes of 5533 PDs were accrued from 17 international institutions (2003–2019). The FRS was used to derive 80 unique combinations of patient “scenarios.” Risk-matched analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni adjustment to identify scenarios with increased vulnerability for CR-POPF occurrence. Subsequently, these scenarios were analyzed using multivariable regression to explore optimal mitigation approaches. Results: The overall CR-POPF rate was 13.6%. All 80 possible scenarios were encountered, with the most frequent being scenario #1 (8.1%) – the only negligible-risk scenario (CR-POPF rate = 0.7%). The moderate-risk zone had the most scenarios (50), patients (N = 3246), CR-POPFs (65.2%), and greatest non-zero discrepancy in CR-POPF rates between scenarios (18-fold). In the risk-matched analysis, 2 scenarios (#59 and 60) displayed increased vulnerability for CR-POPF relative to the moderate-risk zone (both P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with CR-POPF in these scenarios: pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction [odds ratio (OR) 4.67], omission of drain placement (OR 5.51), and prophylactic octreotide (OR 3.09). When comparing the utilization of best practice strategies to patients who did not have these conjointly utilized, there was a significant decrease in CR-POPF (10.7% vs 35.5%, P < 0.001; OR 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.33). Conclusion: Through this data, a comprehensive fistula risk catalog has been created and the most clinically-impactful scenarios have been discerned. Focusing on individual scenarios provides a practical way to approach precision medicine, allowing for more directed and efficient management of CR-POPF.

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

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.

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) requires sufficient laparoscopic training for optimal outcomes. Our aim is to determine the learning curve and investigate the factors influencing surgical outcomes during the learning curve.MethodsWe analyzed surgical results of 150 consecutive cases of LPD performed by three hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons during their 50 first cases. Learning curves were constructed by cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Preoperative factors influencing resection time and blood loss were investigated in the introductory and stable periods.Results The learning curve could be divided into three phases: initial (1–20 cases), plateau (21–30), and stable (31–50). Resection time with lymph node dissection was significantly longer during the introductory period (initial and plateau periods) (P < 0.01) but not the stable phase (P = 0.51). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with pancreatitis had longer resection times and massive blood loss in both the introductory and stable periods (stable phase). High visceral fat area was also significantly related to massive blood loss in the introductory period (P = 0.04).ConclusionsHepatopancreatobiliary surgeons need more than 30 cases until LPD becomes stable. Lymph node dissection and patients with high visceral fat area and concomitant pancreatitis should be avoided during the introductory period of the learning curve.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral factors affect the level of difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The purpose of this study was to develop a difficulty scoring (DS) system to quantify the degree of difficulty in LDP.MethodsWe collected clinical data for 80 patients who underwent LDP. A 10‐level difficulty index was developed and subcategorized into a three‐level difficulty index; 1–3 as low, 4–6 as intermediate, and 7–10 as high index. The automatic linear modeling (LINEAR) statistical tool was used to identify factors that significantly increase level of difficulty in LDP.ResultsThe operator's 10‐level DS concordance between the 10‐level DS by the reviewers, LINEAR index DS, and clinical index DS systems were analyzed, and the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic were at 0.869, 0.729, and 0.648, respectively, showing good to excellent inter‐rater agreement. We identified five factors significantly affecting level of difficulty in LDP; type of operation, resection line, proximity of tumor to major vessel, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension/splenomegaly.ConclusionsThis novel DS for LDP adequately quantified the degree of difficulty, and can be useful for selecting patients for LDP, in conjunction with fitness for surgery and prognosis.