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.

It is generally recognized that in patients with an intact stomach diagnosed with esophageal cancer, gastric tubulization and pull-up shall always be the preferred technique for reconstruction after an esophageal resection. However, in cases with extensive gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer with aboral spread and after previous gastric surgery, alternative methods for reconstruction have to be pursued. Moreover, in benign cases as well as in those with early neoplastic lesions of the esophagus and the GEJ that are associated with long survival, it is basically unclear which conduit should be recommended. The aim of this study is to determine the long-term functional outcomes of different conduits used for esophageal replacement, based on a comprehensive literature review. Eligible were all clinical studies reporting outcomes after esophagectomy, which contained information on at least three years of follow-up after the operation in patients who were older than 18 years of age at the time of the operation. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic web-based search using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases was performed, reviewing medical literature published between January 2006 and December 2015. The scientific quality of the data was generally low, which allowed us to incorporate only 16 full text articles for the final analyses. After a gastric pull-up, the proportion of patients who suffered from dysphagia varied substantially but seemed to decrease over time with a mild dysphagia remaining during long-term follow-up. When reflux-related symptoms and complications were addressed, roughly two third of patients experienced mild to moderate reflux symptoms a long time after the resection. Following an isoperistaltic colonic graft, the functional long-term outcomes regarding swallowing difficulties were sparsely reported, while three studies reported reflux/regurgitation symptoms in the range of 5% to 16%, one of which reported the symptom severity as being mild. Only one report was available after the use of a long jejunal segment, which contained only six patients, who scored the severity of dysphagia and reflux as mild. Very few if any data were available on a structured assessment of dumping and disturbed bowel functions. Few high-quality data are available on the long-term functional outcomes after esophageal replacement irrespective of the use of a gastric tube, the right or left colon or a long jejunal segment. No firm conclusions regarding the advantages of one graft over the other can presently be drawn.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) ratios and to compare them with other biomarkers and clinical scores of sepsis outside the intensive care unit. Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, 251 patients with sepsis and 126 patients with infection other than sepsis were enrolled. NLR and PLR were calculated as the ratio between absolute values of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and platelets by complete blood counts performed on whole blood by Sysmex XE-9000 (Dasit, Italy) following the manufacturer’s instruction. Results: The best NLR value in diagnosis of sepsis was 7.97 with sensibility, specificity, AUC, PPV, and NPV of 64.26%, 80.16%, 0.74 (p < 0.001), 86.49%, and 53.18%, respectively. The diagnostic role of NLR significantly increases when PLR, C-reactive protein (PCR), procalcitonin (PCT), and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) values, as well as systemic inflammatory re-sponse syndrome (SIRS), sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), and quick-sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores, were added to the model. The best value of NLR in predicting 90-day mortality was 9.05 with sensibility, specificity, AUC, PPV, and NPV of 69.57%, 61.44%, 0.66 (p < 0.0001), 28.9%, and 89.9%, respectively. Sensibility, specificity, AUC, PPV, and NPV of NLR increase if PLR, PCR, PCT, MR-proADM, SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA scores are added to NLR. Conclusions: NLR and PLR represent a widely useful and cheap tool in diagnosis and in predict-ing 90-day mortality in patients with sepsis.