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: 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.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60–400) vs 300 mL (150–500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6–12) vs 9 (7–14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8–22) vs 22 (14–31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22–34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26–36) months (P = 0.929). Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.