Distinct risk factors for early and late blood transfusion following pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery(ISGPS) has defined two periods of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, early(<24 h) and late(>24 h). A previously published Blood Usage Risk Score(BURS) aimed to predict early and late blood transfusion. The primary aim of this study was to define risk factors for early and late blood transfusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Secondary aims were to assess the predictive accuracy of the BURS.Methods: In this retrospective observational study, multivariable analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for both early and late blood transfusion. The predictive ability of the BURS was then assessed using a receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve analysis.Results: Among 628 patients, 99(15.8%) and 144(22.9%) received early and late blood transfusion, respectively. Risk factors for blood transfusion differed between early and late periods. Preoperative anemia and venous resection were associated with early blood transfusion whilst Whipple’s resection(as opposed to pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy), lack of biliary stent and a narrow pancreatic duct were predictors of late blood transfusion. The BURS was significantly predictive of early blood transfusion,albeit with a modest degree of accuracy(AUROC: 0.700, P < 0.001), but not of late blood transfusion(AUROC: 0.525, P = 0.360). Late blood transfusion was independently associated with increasing severity of postoperative pancreatic fistula(POPF)(OR: 1.85, 3.18 and 9.97 for biochemical, types B and C POPF,respectively, relative to no POPF).Conclusions: Two largely different sets of variables are related to early and late blood transfusion following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The BURS was significantly associated with early, albeit with modest predictive accuracy, but not late blood transfusion. An understanding of POPF risk allows assessment of the need for late blood transfusion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases

Background:The use of laparoscopic(LLR)and robotic liver resections(RLR)has been safely performed in many institutions for liver tumours.A large scale international multicenter study would provide stronger evidence and insight into application of these techniques for huge liver tumours≥10 cm.Methods:This was a retrospective review of 971 patients who underwent LLR and RLR for huge(≥10 cm)tumors at 42 international centers between 2002-2020.Results:One hundred RLR and 699 LLR which met study criteria were included.The comparison between the 2 approaches for patients with huge tumors were performed using 1:3 propensity-score matching(PSM)(73 vs.219).Before PSM,LLR was associated with significantly increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery,malignant pathology,liver cirrhosis and increased median blood.After PSM,RLR and LLR was associated with no significant difference in key perioperative outcomes including media operation time(242 vs.290 min,P=0.286),transfusion rate rate(19.2%vs.16.9%,P=0.652),median blood loss(200 vs.300 mL,P=0.694),open conversion rate(8.2%vs.11.0%,P=0.519),morbidity(28.8%vs.21.9%,P=0.221),major morbidity(4.1%vs.9.6%,P=0.152),mortality and postoperative length of stay(6 vs.6 days,P=0.435).Conclusions:RLR and LLR can be performed safely for selected patients with huge liver tumours with excellent outcomes.There was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes after RLR or LLR.

Appraisal of the current guidelines for management of cholangiocarcinoma-using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) Instrument

Cholangiocarcinoma(CC)is the second most common primary liver tumour.High-quality guidelines are essential for effective patient stratification and individualised treatment.This study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for the resection of CC using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research&Evaluation(AGREE II)instrument.A systematic search of the literature in Cochrane,PubMed,Google Scholar,and Embase was performed.Assessment of the clinical practice guidelines(CPGs)and consensuses was performed using the AGREE II instrument by four clinicians experienced in surgical practice and the AGREE II appraisal method.Literature searches identified 13 guidelines of highly variable quality according to the AGREE II criteria.The guidelines scored well in certain domains such as scope&purpose(median score across all guidelines;65%),clarity of presentation(76%),and editorial independence(56%).However,they scored poorly for applicability(13%),rigour of development(30%),and stakeholder involvement(39%).None of the 13 guidelines was recommended universally for use without modification.Overall,the methodological quality of guidelines on the surgical management of CC is poor.Future updates should address and modify shortcomings detected by the AGREE II instrument,thereby facilitating better patient stratification and individualised treatment strategies.