The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 experts’ recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long-term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long-term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st-world-consensus-conference-of-pancreas-transplantation/246.

Introduction: It has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor. Nevertheless, theoretically lowering intra-abdominal pressure could reduce the impact of pneumoperitoneum on the blood circulation of intra-abdominal organs as well as cardiopulmonary function. However, the evidence remains weak, and as such, the debate remains unresolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the current knowledge around the effect of pneumoperitoneum at different pressures levels during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome). Conclusions: This review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

A ‘complex’ hernia is often referred to in the published literature, yet has not been clearly defined to date. ‘Large’ and ‘giant’ may also be used to describe a complex incisional hernia indirectly^1–3. Meanwhile, a ‘complex hernia’ in reference to the technical surgical challenge of abdominal wall repair is different from a ‘complex patient’, the latter relating more to a patient’s mental or physical health. Several risk scores have been developed and described in the literature^2,4–6. Although hernia dimensions and defect characteristics alongside patient co-morbidities have demonstrated some correlation with poor surgical outcomes^1,3, postoperative complications alone should not define complexity^6,7. Slater et al.⁸ subsequently published criteria to define a complex abdominal wall hernia, comprising four categories: size and location, contamination/soft tissue condition, patient history/risk factors, and clinical scenario; three severity classes were defined, namely minor, moderate, and major. Although often referenced in publications, this definition has not been found to be an efficient working definition of a complex incisional hernia^4,9. Furthermore, with increasing preoperative adjuncts and operative strategies available to manage incisional hernia^6,10, and increased surgical specialization in the field^2,10, a revised consensus definition is required.

Introduction: Artificial intelligence and computer vision are revolutionizing the way we perceive video analysis in minimally invasive surgery. This emerging technology has increasingly been leveraged successfully for video segmentation, documentation, education, and formative assessment. New, sophisticated platforms allow pre-determined segments chosen by surgeons to be automatically presented without the need to review entire videos. This study aimed to validate and demonstrate the accuracy of the first reported AI-based computer vision algorithm that automatically recognizes surgical steps in videos of totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Methods: Videos of TEP procedures were manually labeled by a team of annotators trained to identify and label surgical workflow according to six major steps. For bilateral hernias, an additional change of focus step was also included. The videos were then used to train a computer vision AI algorithm. Performance accuracy was assessed in comparison to the manual annotations. Results: A total of 619 full-length TEP videos were analyzed: 371 were used to train the model, 93 for internal validation, and the remaining 155 as a test set to evaluate algorithm accuracy. The overall accuracy for the complete procedure was 88.8%. Per-step accuracy reached the highest value for the hernia sac reduction step (94.3%) and the lowest for the preperitoneal dissection step (72.2%). Conclusions: These results indicate that the novel AI model was able to provide fully automated video analysis with a high accuracy level. High-accuracy models leveraging AI to enable automation of surgical video analysis allow us to identify and monitor surgical performance, providing mathematical metrics that can be stored, evaluated, and compared. As such, the proposed model is capable of enabling data-driven insights to improve surgical quality and demonstrate best practices in TEP procedures. Graphical

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment. This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials). Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]). This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.