Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Objective: This trial followed a structured nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), according to the IDEAL framework for surgical innovation, and aimed to compare time to functional recovery after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Background: MIDP is increasingly used and may enhance postoperative recovery as compared with ODP, but randomized studies are lacking. Methods: A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial was performed in 14 centers between April 2015 and March 2017. Adult patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas without vascular involvement were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo MIDP or ODP. Patients were blinded for type of surgery using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5689). Results: Time to functional recovery was 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3–6) in 51 patients after MIDP versus 6 days (IQR 5–8) in 57 patients after ODP (P < 0.001). The conversion rate of MIDP was 8%. Operative blood loss was less after MIDP (150 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), whereas operative time was longer (217 vs 179 minutes; P = 0.005). The Clavien–Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 25% versus 38% (P = 0.21). Delayed gastric emptying grade B/C was seen less often after MIDP (6% vs 20%; P = 0.04). Postoperative pancreatic fistulas grade B/C were seen in 39% after MIDP versus 23% after ODP (P = 0.07), without difference in percutaneous catheter drainage (22% vs 20%; P = 0.77). Quality of life (day 3–30) was better after MIDP as compared with ODP, and overall costs were non-significantly less after MIDP. No 90-day mortality was seen after MIDP versus 2% (n = 1) after ODP. Conclusions: In patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas, MIDP reduces time to functional recovery compared with ODP. Although the overall rate of complications was not reduced, MIDP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying and better quality of life without increasing costs.

Background: In predicted severe acute pancreatitis, many patients develop organ failure and recover without local complications, and mortality is only 14–30%. It has been suggested that half of patients with progressive early organ failure may die, but there are no data to relate death or local complications to duration of early (week 1) organ failure. Aims: To determine mortality rates in patients with transient (48 hours) early organ failure and to show whether persistent organ failure predicts death or local complications. Patients: A total of 290 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis previously studied in a trial of lexipafant, recruited from 78 hospitals through 18 centres in the UK. Method: Manual review of trial database to determine: the presence of organ failure (Marshall score ⩾2) on each of the first seven days in hospital, duration of organ failure, and outcome of pancreatitis (death, complications by Atlanta criteria). Results: Early organ failure was present in 174 (60%) patients. After transient organ failure (n = 71), outcome was good: one death and 29% local complications. Persistent organ failure (n = 103) was followed by 36 deaths and 77% local complications, irrespective of onset of organ failure on admission or later during the first week. Conclusion: Duration of organ failure during the first week of predicted severe acute pancreatitis is strongly associated with the risk of death or local complications. Resolution of organ failure within 48 hours suggests a good prognosis; persistent organ failure is a marker for subsequent death or local complications.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy, without blood loss as a predictor. Background: Blood loss, one of the predictors of the original-FRS, was not a significant factor during 2 recent external validations. Methods: The a-FRS was developed in 2 databases: the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centers) and the University Hospital Southampton NHS. Primary outcome was grade B/C POPF according to the 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. The score was externally validated in 2 independent databases (University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Pennsylvania), using both 2005 and 2016 ISGPS definitions. The a-FRS was also compared with the original-FRS. Results: For model design, 1924 patients were included of whom 12% developed POPF. Three predictors were strongly associated with POPF: soft pancreatic texture [odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.80–3.69], small pancreatic duct diameter (per mm increase, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61–0.76), and high body mass index (BMI) (per kg/m² increase, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11). Discrimination was adequate with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71–0.78) after internal validation, and 0.78 (0.74–0.82) after external validation. The predictive capacity of a-FRS was comparable with the original-FRS, both for the 2005 definition (AUC 0.78 vs 0.75, P = 0.03), and 2016 definition (AUC 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.05). Conclusion: The a-FRS predicts POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy based on 3 easily available variables (pancreatic texture, duct diameter, BMI) without blood loss and pathology, and was successfully validated for both the 2005 and 2016 POPF definition. The online calculator is available at www.pancreascalculator.com.

Over the past decades, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has established a well-defined system for cancer staging based on 3 key components: local tumor extent (T stage), dissemination to the regional lymph nodes (N stage), and metastatic spread to distant sites (M stage) (TNM staging).¹ The AJCC TNM staging system attempts to use anatomical and reproducible parameters to discriminate groups with different survival outcomes.^1-4 Reliable prediction of survival estimates is of paramount importance in cancer care. Accurate prognostication helps clinicians in guiding treatment decisions, provides researchers with a tool to adjust for cancer stage in evaluating treatment outcomes, and is informative to patients themselves.^5,6