Objective: Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Summary Background Data: TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life. Results: After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P=0.857). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.

Background: Postpancreatectomy morbidity remains significant even in high-volume centers and frequently results in delay or suspension of indicated adjuvant oncological treatment. This study investigated the short-term and long-term outcome after primary total pancreatectomy (PTP) and pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) or Whipple procedure, with a special focus on administration of adjuvant therapy and oncological survival. Methods: Patients who underwent PTP or PPPD/Whipple for periampullary cancer between January 2008 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes. Correspondingly, cases of rescue completion pancreatectomy (RCP) were analyzed. Results: In total, 41 PTP and 343 PPPD/Whipple procedures were performed for periampullary cancer. After propensity score matching, morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥ IIIa, 31.7% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.62) and mortality rates (7.3% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.36) were similar in PTP and PPPD/Whipple. Frequency of adjuvant treatment administration (76.5% vs. 78.4%; p = 0.87), overall survival (513 vs. 652 days; p = 0.47), and progression-free survival (456 vs. 454 days; p = 0.95) did not significantly differ. In turn, after RCP, morbidity (CDC ≥ IIIa, 85%) and mortality (40%) were high, and overall survival was poor (median 104 days). Indicated adjuvant therapy was not administered in 77%. Conclusions: In periampullary cancers, PTP may provide surgical and oncological treatment outcomes comparable with pancreatic head resections and might save patients from RCP. Especially in selected cases with high-risk pancreatic anastomosis or preoperatively impaired glucose tolerance, PTP may provide a safe treatment alternative to pancreatic head resection.

There are 3 main types of incisions in major open, elective abdominal surgery: the midline incision (MI), the transverse incision (TI) and the modified Makuuchi incision (MMI). This study aimed to compare these approaches regarding wound complications and hernias, with a special focus on suture material and previous laparotomies. Patients who underwent elective abdominal surgery between 2015 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were computed using stepwise binary and multifactorial regression models. In total, 696 patients (406 MI, 137 TI and 153 MMI) were included. No relevant differences were observed for patient characteristics (e.g., sex, age, body mass index [BMI], American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score). Fewer wound complications (TI 22.6% vs MI 33.5% vs MMI 32.7%, P = .04) occurred in the TI group. However, regarding the endpoints surgical site infection (SSI), fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia, no risk factor after MI, TI, and MMI could be detected in statistical analysis. There was no difference regarding the occurrence of fascial dehiscence (P = .58) or incisional hernia (P = .97) between MI, TI, and MMI. In cases of relaparotomies, the incidence of fascial dehiscence (P = .2) or incisional hernia (P = .58) did not significantly differ between the MI, TI, or MMI as well as between primary and reincision of each type. On the other hand, the time to first appearance of a hernia after MMI is significantly shorter (P = .03) than after MI or TI, even after previous laparotomy (P = .003). In comparing the 3 most common types of abdominal incisions and ignoring the type of operative procedure performed, TI seems to be the least complicated approach. However, because the incidence of fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia is not relevantly increased, the stability of the abdominal wall is apparently not affected by relaparotomy, even by repeated MIs, TIs, and MMIs. Therefore, the type of laparotomy, especially a relaparotomy, can be chosen based on the surgeon's preference and planned procedure without worrying about increased wound complications.

Objectives: A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is defined as a threefold increase in the amylase concentration in abdominal drains on or after the third postoperative day (POD). However, additional lipase fluid analysis is widely used despite lacking evidence. In this study, drain amylase and lipase levels were compared regarding their value in detecting POPF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study including all patients who underwent pancreatic resections at our center between 2005 and 2016. Drain fluid analysis was performed from day 2 to 5. Results: 990 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 333 (34%) patients developed a POPF. The median amylase and lipase concentrations at POD 3 in cases with POPF were 11.55 µmol/(s·L) (≈13 ×-fold increase) and 39 µmol/(s·L) (≈39 ×-fold increase), respectively. Seven patients with subsequent POPF (2%) were missed with amylase analysis on POD 3, but detected using 3-fold lipase analysis. The false-positive rate of lipase was 51/424 = 12%. A cutoff lipase value at POD 3 of > 4.88 yielded a specificity of 94% and a sensitivity of 89% for development of a POPF. Increased body mass index turned out as risk factor for the development of POPF in a multivariable model. Conclusions: Threefold-elevated lipase concentration may be used as an indicator of a POPF. However, the additional detection of POPF using simultaneous lipase analysis is marginal. Therefore, assessment of lipase concentration does not provide added clinical value and only results in extra costs.

Background: Resection of the para-aortic lymph node (PALN) group Ln16b1 during pancreatoduodenectomy remains controversial because PALN metastases are associated with a worse prognosis in pancreatic cancer patients. The present study aimed to analyze the impact of PALN metastases on outcome after non-pancreatic periampullary cancer resection. Methods: One hundred sixty-four patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer who underwent curative pancreatoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy between 2005 and 2016 were retrospectively investigated. The data were supplemented with a systematic literature review on this topic. Results: In 67 cases, the PALNs were clearly assigned and could be histopathologically analyzed. In 10.4% of cases (7/67), tumor-infiltrated PALNs (PALN+) were found. Metastatic PALN+ stage was associated with increased tumor size (P = 0.03) and a positive nodal stage (P < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic PALN and non-metastatic PALN (PALN–) was 24.8 and 29.5 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in the OS of PALN+ and pN1 PALN patients (P = 0.834). Patients who underwent palliative surgical treatment (n = 20) had a lower median OS of 13.6 (95% confidence interval 2.7–24.5) months. Including the systematic literature review, only 23 cases with PALN+ status and associated OS could be identified; the average survival was 19.8 months. Conclusion: PALN metastasis reflects advanced tumor growth and lymph node spread; however, it did not limit overall survival in single-center series. The available evidence of the prognostic impact of PALN metastasis is scarce and a recommendation against resection in these cases cannot be given.