This multicenter study sought to prospectively evaluate a drain management protocol for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Recent evidence suggests value for both selective drain placement and early drain removal for PD. Both strategies have been associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF)—the most common and morbid complication after PD. The protocol was applied to 260 consecutive PDs performed at two institutions over 17 months. Risk for ISGPF CR-POPF was determined intraoperatively using the Fistula Risk Score (FRS); drains were omitted in negligible/low risk patients and drain fluid amylase (DFA) was measured on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) for moderate/high risk patients. Drains were removed early (POD 3) in patients with POD 1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L, whereas patients with POD 1 DFA >5,000 U/L were managed by clinical discretion. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort (N = 557; 2011–2014). Fistula risk did not differ between cohorts (median FRS: 4 vs 4; P = 0.933). No CR-POPFs developed in the 70 (26.9%) negligible/low risk patients. Overall CR-POPF rates were significantly lower after protocol implementation (11.2 vs 20.6%, P = 0.001). The protocol cohort also demonstrated lower rates of severe complication, any complication, reoperation, and percutaneous drainage (all P < 0.05). These patients also experienced reduced hospital stay (median: 8 days vs 9 days, P = 0.001). There were no differences between cohorts in the frequency of bile or chyle leaks. Drains can be safely omitted for one-quarter of PDs. Drain amylase analysis identifies which moderate/high risk patients benefit from early drain removal. This data-driven, risk-stratified approach significantly decreases the occurrence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; p_{non-inferiority} = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical implications of the 2016 International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition and classification of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) using a single high-volume institutional cohort of patients undergone pancreatic surgery. Background: The ISGPS definition and grading system of POPF has been recently updated. Although the rationale for the changes was supported by previous studies, the effect of the new definition and classification scheme on surgical series has not been established. Methods: A total of 775 patients undergone pancreatic surgery in our institute from 2013 to 2015 were reviewed. The parameters modified in the ISGPS classification were analyzed according to postoperative outcomes. Finally the classification was validated by external clinical and economical outcomes. Results: Applying the 2016 scheme, 17.5% of patients changed classification group compared to the 2015 system. Grade B increased from 11.5% to 22.1%, whereas grade C decreased from 15.2% to 4.6%. Biochemical leak occurred in 7% of patients, and it did not differ from the non-POPF condition in terms of surgical outcomes. Non-POPF group, grades B and C POPF differed significantly in terms of intensive care unit staying (P < 0.001), length of stay (P < 0.001), readmission rate (P < 0.001), and hospital costs (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The present study has confirmed the pertinence of the changes introduced in the 2016 ISGPS POPF definition and grading. This updated classification is effective in identifying three conditions that differ in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. These results suggested the reliability of the new definition and scheme in classifying POPF-related outcomes.

Objective: The objective of the present analysis is 2-fold: first, to define the evolution of time trends on the surgical approach to pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (Pan-NENs); second, to perform a complete analysis of the predictors of oncologic outcome. Background: Reflecting their rarity and heterogeneity, Pan-NENs represent a clinical dilemma. In particular, there is a scarcity of data regarding their long-term follow-up after surgical resection. Methods: From the Institutional Pan-NEN database, 587 resected cases from 1990 to 2015 were extracted. The time span was arbitrarily divided into 3 discrete clusters enabling a balanced comparison between patient groups. Analyses for predictors of recurrence and survival were performed, together with conditional survival analyses. Results: Among the 587 resected Pan-NENs, 75% were nonfunctioning tumors, and 5% were syndrome-associated tumors. The mean age was 54 years (±14 years), and 51% of the patients were female. The median tumor size was 20 mm (range 4 to 140), 62% were G1, 32% were G2, and 4% were G3 tumors. Time trends analysis revealed that the number of resected Pan-NENs constantly increased, while the size (from 25 to 20 mm) and G1 proportion (from 65% to 49%) decreased during the study period. After a mean follow-up of 75 months, recurrence analysis revealed that nonfunctioning tumors, tumor grade, N1 status, and vascular invasion were all independent predictors of recurrence. Regardless of size, G1 nonfunctioning tumors with no nodal involvement and vascular invasion had a negligible risk of recurrence at 5 years. Conclusions: Pan-NENs have been increasingly diagnosed and resected during the last 3 decades, revealing reliable predictors of outcome. Functioning and nodal status, tumor grade, and vascular invasion accurately predict survival and recurrence with resulting implications for patient follow-up.