Citations

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: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). Background: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. Material and Methods: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. Results: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P=0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P=0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P=0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P=0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P=0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P=0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P=0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P<0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. Conclusions: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide. Procedure difficulty and patient outcomes depend on several factors which are not considered in the current literature, including the learning curve, generating confusing and subjective results. This study aims to create a scoring system to calculate the learning curve of LC based on hepatobiliopancreatic (HPB) experts’ opinions during an educational course. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to the panel of experts attending the HPB course at Research Institute against Digestive Cancer-IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) from 27–29 October 2022. Experts scored the proposed variables according to their degree of importance in the learning curve using a Likert scale from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Variables were included in the composite scoring system only if more than 75% of experts ranked its relevance in the learning curve assessment ≥4. A positive or negative value was assigned to each variable based on its effect on the learning curve. Results: Fifteen experts from six different countries attended the IRCAD HPB course and filled out the questionnaire. Ten variables were finally included in the learning curve scoring system (i.e., patient body weight/BMI, patient previous open surgery, emergency setting, increased inflammatory levels, presence of anatomical bile duct variation(s), and appropriate critical view of safety (CVS) identification), which were all assigned positive values. Minor or major intraoperative injuries to the biliary tract, development of postoperative complications related to biliary injuries, and mortality were assigned negative values. Conclusions: This is the first scoring system on the learning curve of LC based on variables selected through the experts’ opinions. Although the score needs to be validated through future studies, it could be a useful tool to assess its efficacy within educational programs and surgical courses.

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. Aims: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. Materials and Methods: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. Results: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%–78.2%) (https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/). Conclusions: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

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.

AbstractBackgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has gained in popularity recently. However, there is no consensus on whether to preserve the spleen or not. In this study, we compared MIDP outcomes between spleen‐preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS); as well as outcomes between splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw's technique (WT).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library was conducted and the reference lists of review articles were hand‐searched.ResultsFifteen relevant studies with 769 patients were selected for meta‐analyses of DPS and SPDP, while another 15 studies with 841 patients were used for the analysis between SVP and WT. Compared with the DPS group, SPDP patients had significantly lower incidences of infectious complications (P = 0.006) and pancreatic fistula (P = 0.002), shorter operative time (P < 0.001), and less blood loss (P = 0.01). Compared with WT, SVP patients had significantly lower incidences of splenic infarction (P < 0.001) and secondary splenectomy (P = 0.003). Subanalysis for laparoscopic surgery alone had similar results.ConclusionsBased on this study, SPDP has significantly superior outcomes compared to DPS. When a spleen is preserved, SVP has better outcomes over WT for reducing splenic complications.