Background The decision as to whether a patient can tolerate surgery is often subjective and can misjudge a patient's true physiologic state. The concept of frailty is an important assessment tool in ...the geriatric medical population, but has only recently gained attention in surgical patients. Frailty potentially represents a measureable phenotype, which, if quantified with a standardized protocol, could reliably estimate the risk of adverse surgical outcomes. Study Design Frailty was prospectively evaluated in the clinic setting in patients consenting for major general, oncologic, and urologic procedures. Evaluation included an established assessment tool (Hopkins Frailty Score), self-administered questionnaires, clinical assessment of performance status, and biochemical measures. Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complications. Results There were189 patients evaluated: 117 from urology, 52 from surgical oncology, and 20 from general surgery clinics. Mean age was 62 years, 59.8% were male, and 71.4% were Caucasian. Patients who scored intermediately frail or frail on the Hopkins Frailty Score were more likely to experience postoperative complications (odds ratio OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.08, p = 0.036). Of all other preoperative assessment tools, only higher hemoglobin (p = 0.033) had a significant association and was protective for 30-day complications. Conclusions The aggregate score of patients as “intermediately frail or frail” on the Hopkins Frailty Score was predictive of a patient experiencing a postoperative complication. This preoperative assessment tool may prove beneficial when weighing the risks and benefits of surgery, allowing objective data to guide surgical decision-making and patient counseling.
OBJECTIVES:Limited data exist comparing robotic and open approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We performed a multicenter comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic PD (RPD) and open PD ...(OPD).
METHODS:Perioperative data for patients who underwent postlearning curve PD at 8 centers (8/2011–1/2015) were assessed. Univariate analyses of clinicopathologic and treatment factors were performed, and multivariable models were constructed to determine associations of operative approach (RPD or OPD) with perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS:Of the 1028 patients, 211 (20.5%) underwent RPD (4.7% conversions) and 817 (79.5%) underwent OPD. As compared with OPD, RPD patients had higher body mass index, rates of prior abdominal surgery, and softer pancreatic remnants, whereas OPD patients had a higher percentage of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cases, and greater proportion of nondilated (<3 mm) pancreatic ducts. On multivariable analysis, as compared with OPD, RPD was associated with longer operative times mean difference = 75.4 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.5–133.3, P = 0.01, reduced blood loss (mean difference = −181 mL, 95% CI −355–(−7.7), P = 0.04) and reductions in major complications (odds ratio = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47–0.85, P = 0.003). No associations were demonstrated between operative approach and 90-day mortality, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and wound infection, length of stay, or 90-day readmission. In the subset of 522 (51%) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, operative approach was not a significant independent predictor of margin status or suboptimal lymphadenectomy (<12 lymph nodes harvested).
CONCLUSIONS:Postlearning curve RPD can be performed with similar perioperative outcomes achieved with OPD. Further studies of cost, quality of life, and long-term oncologic outcomes are needed.
Background
Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long‐term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for ...cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.
Objectives
To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.
Search methods
We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.
Selection criteria
We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non‐randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed‐effect and random‐effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention‐to‐treat analysis when possible.
Main results
We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non‐randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort‐like studies or case‐control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.
Differences in short‐term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta‐analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I2 = 0%), long‐term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I2 = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow‐up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta‐analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I2 = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I2 = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta‐analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD ‐2.43 days, 95% CI ‐3.13 to ‐1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I2 = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.
Authors' conclusions
Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow‐up. Such studies should include patient‐oriented outcomes such as short‐term mortality and long‐term mortality (at least two to three years); health‐related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.
Current Management of Gallbladder Carcinoma Zhu, Andrew X.; Hong, Theodore S.; Hezel, Aram F. ...
The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio),
February 2010, Volume:
15, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Gallbladder cancer (GBC) represents the most common and aggressive type among the biliary tree cancers (BTCs). Complete surgical resection offers the only chance for cure; however, only 10% of ...patients with GBC present with early‐stage disease and are considered surgical candidates. Among those patients who do undergo “curative” resection, recurrence rates are high. There are no established adjuvant treatments in this setting. Patients with unresectable or metastatic GBC have a poor prognosis. There has been a paucity of randomized phase III data in this field. A recent report demonstrated longer overall survival with gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin than with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced or metastatic BTCs. Molecularly targeted agents are under development. In this review, we attempt to discuss the current status and key issues involved in the management of GBC.
This review discusses the current status and key issues involved in the management of gallbladder cancer.
Background Frailty is an objective method of quantifying a patient’s fitness for surgery. Its clinical use is limited by the time needed to complete, as well as a lack of evidence-based interventions ...to improve outcomes in identified frail patients. The purpose of this study was to critically analyze the components of the Fried Frailty Criteria, among other preoperative variables, to create a simplified risk assessment amenable to a busy clinical setting, while maintaining prognostic ability for surgical outcomes. Study Design We performed a prospective evaluation of patients that included the 5-component Fried Frailty Criteria, traditional surgical risk assessments, biochemical laboratory values, and clinical and demographic data. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were the outcomes of interest. Results There were 351 consecutive patients undergoing major intra-abdominal operations enrolled. Analysis demonstrated that shrinking and grip strength alone hold the same prognostic information as the full 5-component Fried Frailty Criteria for 30-day morbidity and mortality. The addition of American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score and serum hemoglobin creates a composite risk score, which facilitates easy classification of patients into discrete low (ref), intermediate (odds ratio OR 1.974, 95% CI 1.006 to 3.877, p = 0.048), and high (OR 4.889, 95% CI 2.220 to 10.769, p < 0.001) risk categories, with a corresponding stepwise increase in risk for 30-day postoperative complications. Internal validation by bootstrapping confirmed the results. Conclusions This study demonstrated that 2 components of the Fried Frailty Criteria, shrinking and grip strength, hold the same predictive value as the full frailty assessment. When combined with American Society of Anesthesiologists score and serum hemoglobin, they form a straightforward, simple risk classification system with robust prognostic information.
In the absence of randomized trials, uncertainty regarding the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) remains. This systematic review aimed to compare oncologic ...outcomes after MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Matched and non-matched studies were included. Pooled analyses were performed for pathology (e.g., microscopically radical (R0) resection and lymph node retrieval) and oncologic outcomes (e.g., overall survival). After screening 1760 studies, 21 studies with 11,246 patients were included. Overall survival (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.01; p = 0.06), R0 resection rate (odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95%CI 0.97 to 1.58; p = 0.09) and use of adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.30; p = 0.46) were comparable for MIDP and ODP. The lymph node yield (weighted mean difference (WMD) −1.3 lymph nodes; 95%CI -2.46 to −0.15; p = 0.03) was lower after MIDP. Patients undergoing MIDP were more likely to have smaller tumors (WMD -0.46 cm; 95%CI -0.67 to −0.24; p < 0.001), less perineural (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.33 to 0.70; p < 0.001) and less lymphovascular invasion (OR 0.53; 95%CI 0.38 to 0.74; p < 0.001) reflecting earlier staged disease as a result of treatment allocation bias. Based on these results we can conclude that in patients with PDAC, MIDP is associated with comparable survival, R0 resection, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy, but a lower lymph node yield, as compared to ODP. Due to treatment allocation bias and lower lymph node yield the oncologic efficacy of MIDP remains uncertain.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
