Background: There is no consensus as to whether displaced extra-articular distal radial fractures should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. We compared the outcomes of open reduction and volar plate fixation with closed reduction and plaster immobilization in adults with an acceptably reduced extra-articular distal radial fracture. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients 18 to 75 years old with an acceptably reduced extra-articular distal radial fracture were randomly assigned to open reduction and volar plate fixation or plaster immobilization. The primary outcome was function as measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire after 12 months. Follow-up was conducted at 1, 3, and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Ninety-two patients were randomized, 48 to open reduction and volar plate fixation and 44 to plaster immobilization; 1 patient in each group was excluded for withdrawing informed consent. At all follow-up time points, operatively treated patients had significantly better functional outcomes, as indicated by significantly lower DASH scores, than patients treated nonoperatively (all p values < 0.05). Twelve nonoperatively managed patients (28%) had fracture redisplacement within 6 weeks and underwent subsequent open reduction and internal fixation, and 6 patients (14%) had a symptomatic malunion treated with corrective osteotomy. Conclusions: Patients with an acceptably reduced extra-articular distal radial fracture treated with open reduction and volar plate fixation have better functional outcomes after 12 months compared with nonoperatively managed patients. Additionally, 42% of nonoperatively managed patients had a subsequent surgical procedure. Open reduction and volar plate fixation should be considered for patients who experience this common injury. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed. Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23). Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations. The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

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.

The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 4-tier (ie, A-D) risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C is based on pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size: A (not-soft texture and pancreatic duct >3 mm), B (not-soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), C (soft texture and pancreatic duct >3 mm), and D (soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm). This study aimed to validate the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for all indications (2014-2021) were included from the nationwide, mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 2016 definition) was calculated per risk category. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (discrimination) and calibration plots. Overall, 3,900 patients were included in risk categories: A (n = 1,046), B (n = 498), C (n = 963), and D (n = 1,393) with corresponding postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C rates of 3.8%, 12.2%, 15.6%, and 29.6%. Per category, the in-hospital mortality rates were 1.3%, 3.4%, 2.9%, and 4.1%, P = .001. There was no difference in the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula between risk categories B and C (12.2% vs 15.6%, P = .101). When simplifying the classification system to a 3-tier classification system (based on 0, 1, and 2 risk factors), the discrimination was not significantly different (area under the receiver operating curve 0.697 vs area under the receiver operating curve 0.701, P = .077). This validation of the 4-tier International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy confirmed its predictive value. However, as the 2 middle risk categories provide no added predictive value, a simplified 3-tier classification with comparable predictive value is proposed and should be validated in future prospective studies.

Background: We developed models for tumor segmentation to automate the assessment of total tumor volume (TTV) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: In this prospective cohort study, pre- and post-systemic treatment computed tomography (CT) scans of 259 patients with initially unresectable CRLM of the CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. In total, 595 CT scans comprising 8,959 CRLM were divided into training (73%), validation (6.5%), and test sets (21%). Deep learning models were trained with ground truth segmentations of the liver and CRLM. TTV was calculated based on the CRLM segmentations. An external validation cohort was included, comprising 72 preoperative CT scans of patients with 112 resectable CRLM. Image segmentation evaluation metrics and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. Results: In the test set (122 CT scans), the autosegmentation models showed a global Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.96 (liver) and 0.86 (CRLM). The corresponding median per-case DSC was 0.96 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.95–0.96) and 0.80 (IQR 0.67–0.87). For tumor segmentation, the intersection-over-union, precision, and recall were 0.75, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively. An excellent agreement was observed between the reference and automatically computed TTV for the test set (ICC 0.98) and external validation cohort (ICC 0.98). In the external validation, the global DSC was 0.82 and the median per-case DSC was 0.60 (IQR 0.29–0.76) for tumor segmentation. Conclusions: Deep learning autosegmentation models were able to segment the liver and CRLM automatically and accurately in patients with initially unresectable CRLM, enabling automatic TTV assessment in such patients. Relevance statement: Automatic segmentation enables the assessment of total tumor volume in patients with colorectal liver metastases, with a high potential of decreasing radiologist’s workload and increasing accuracy and consistency. Key points: • Tumor response evaluation is time-consuming, manually performed, and ignores total tumor volume. • Automatic models can accurately segment tumors in patients with colorectal liver metastases. • Total tumor volume can be accurately calculated based on automatic segmentations. Graphical

Total pancreatectomy (TP) is mentioned as alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with high-risk pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) to avoid severe pancreatic fistula-related complications, but its benefit is controversial and comparative studies are scarce. Cross-sectional single-center study among patients after PD with high-risk PJ versus patients after single-stage elective TP for any indication (2015-2017), using propensity scores to evaluate surgical outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) in three risk strata. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L were used for QoL assessment. Overall, 77 patients after TP (68.8%) and 102 patients after high-risk PD (34.5%) were included. Major morbidity (29.9% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.119) and 90-day mortality (5.2% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.354) did not differ significantly between TP and high-risk PD. Interventions for intra-abdominal fluid collections (9.1% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.011) and postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (6.5% vs. 18.6%; p = 0.018) were more often required after high-risk PD, but these differences did not remain after stratification. QoL was comparable after TP and high-risk PD (75% vs. 83%; p = 0.720), even after stratification. TP seems not to be inferior to high-risk PD regarding surgical outcomes and QoL. TP could be considered as an alternative to a very high-risk PD, but reluctance persists since TP does not appear to reduce mortality.