Nakamura, Masafumi

Background: Splanchnic venous thrombosis (SVT) is a potentially severe and frequently underdiagnosed complication following splenectomy in patients with hematologic diseases. Despite its clinical importance, no standardized, evidence-based guidelines currently exist to inform perioperative prevention, diagnosis, or treatment in this population. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines to estimate the incidence and risk factors for SVT after splenectomy in patients with hematologic diseases. Twenty-eight observational studies comprising 5025 patients were included. Risk factor data were analyzed using random-effects models. In parallel, an international Delphi consensus process was performed involving 35 experts (hematologists and surgeons) from 14 countries. Experts were assigned to five domain-specific groups and developed clinical statements on prophylaxis, diagnosis, and management of SVT. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement, and recommendations were graded using the GRADE framework. Results: The pooled incidence of SVT after splenectomy was 11.4%, with higher rates in studies using routine imaging (20.7%) and those conducted at single centers (15.1%). Splenic size and weight were significant risk factors, while age, BMI, and platelet count were not. Disease-specific risk was highest in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms, lymphoma, and thalassemia. The Delphi process generated 25 consensus statements, 14 of which were classified as strong recommendations. Key guidance included perioperative vaccination, individualized thromboprophylaxis with BMI-adjusted low molecular weight heparin, selective Doppler-based screening in high-risk patients, and stepwise anticoagulation regimens based on thrombus burden and clinical evolution. Conclusion: This study presents the first international consensus-based guidelines for managing SVT after splenectomy in patients with hematologic disease. Developed through systematic evidence synthesis and expert consensus, these recommendations provide a practical framework rather than definitive standards of care and support individualized prevention, detection, and treatment strategies in this high-risk population.

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.