Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Despite improvements in perioperative care, major abdominal surgery continues to be associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Accurate preoperative risk stratification and optimisation (prehabilitation) are necessary to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study evaluated the screening and assessment of modifiable risk factors amendable for prehabilitation interventions and measured the patient compliance rate with recommended interventions. Method Between May 2019 and January 2020, patients referred to our hospital for HPB surgery were screened and assessed on six modifiable preoperative risk factors. The risk factors and screening tools used, with cutoff values, included (i) low physical fitness (a 6-min walk test < 82% of patient’s calculated norm and/or patient’s activity level not meeting the global recommendations on physical activity for health). Patients who were unfit based on the screening were assessed with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (anaerobic threshold ≤ 11 mL/kg/min); (ii) malnutrition (patient-generated subjective global assessment ≥ 4); (iii) iron-deficiency anaemia (haemoglobin < 12 g/dL for women, < 13 g/dL for men and transferrin saturation ≤ 20%); (iv) frailty (Groningen frailty indicator/Robinson frailty score ≥ 4); (v) substance use (smoking and alcohol use of > 5 units per week) and (vi) low psychological resilience (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ≥ 8). Patients had a consultation with the surgeon on the same day as their screening. High-risk patients were referred for necessary interventions. Results One hundred consecutive patients were screened at our prehabilitation outpatient clinic. The prevalence of high-risk patients per risk factor was 64% for low physical fitness, 42% for malnutrition, 32% for anaemia (in 47% due to iron deficiency), 22% for frailty, 12% for smoking, 18% for alcohol use and 21% for low psychological resilience. Of the 77 patients who were eventually scheduled for surgery, 53 (68.8%) needed at least one intervention, of whom 28 (52.8%) complied with 100% of the necessary interventions. The median (IQR) number of interventions needed in the 77 patients was 1.0 (0–2). Conclusion It is feasible to screen and assess all patients referred for HPB cancer surgery for six modifiable risk factors. Most of the patients had at least one risk factor that could be optimised. However, compliance with the suggested interventions remains challenging.

Background Prehabilitation programs are increasingly used to optimize patients before pancreatic surgery. A prehabilitation program should include screening, assessment, intervention, and reassessment of multiple patient-related modifiable risk factors. Consensus on the content of a prehabilitation program and which patients should receive prehabilitation is missing. This study aims to assess current preoperative screening practices, surgeons’ opinions, and knowledge of prehabilitation and identify existing prehabilitation programs for pancreatic surgery in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All 15 hospitals providing pancreatic surgery in the Netherlands were included, and an online survey was sent to only one pancreatic surgeon per hospital. The survey was developed by the authors of this paper and based on a previously published survey for prehabilitation in colorectal surgery. Logical ordering and adaptive questioning were used. Results All 15 surgeons responded, and they were all familiar with the term prehabilitation. Twelve hospitals (80%) offered prehabilitation, and in the majority of hospitals (7/12), prehabilitation was offered to all patients. Prehabilitation programs included multiple domains, whereby physical fitness and nutrition were most often included and mental resilience was the least often included domain. Each hospital implemented a different prehabilitation program in terms of included domains, screening methods, and interventions. For the majority of the domains, two or more different forms of screening and three or more different interventions were used across hospitals. A total of 53.3% of surgeons were willing to postpone the surgery of pancreatic malignancies up to a maximum of 4 weeks, 20% up to a maximum of 6 weeks, and 26.7% as long as necessary to optimize the patients’ preoperative overall fitness. Conclusions Pancreatic surgeons in the Netherlands have knowledge of prehabilitation, but high variability exists in current practice regarding prehabilitation programs. There is a need for a uniform standardized prehabilitation program to be able to implement prehabilitation in the standard preoperative care pathway and enable comparison of results across hospitals.

Selective portal vein embolization (PVE) before extended liver surgery is an accepted method to stimulate growth of the future liver remnant. Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) of the main stem and the non-targeted branches to the future liver remnant is a rare but major complication of PVE, requiring immediate revascularization. Without revascularization, curative liver surgery is not possible, resulting in a potentially life-threatening situation. We here present a new surgical technique to revascularize the portal vein after PVT by combining a surgical thrombectomy with catheter-based thrombolysis via the surgically reopened umbilical vein. This technique was successfully applied in a patient who developed thrombosis of the portal vein main stem, as well as the left portal vein and its branches to the left lateral segments after selective right-sided PVE in preparation for an extended right hemihepatectomy. The advantage of this technique is the avoidance of an exploration of hepatoduodenal ligament and a venotomy of the portal vein. The minimal surgical trauma facilitates additional intravascular thrombolytic therapy as well as the future right extended hemihepatectomy. We recommend this technique in patients with extensive PVT in which percutaneous less invasive therapies have been proven unsuccessful.

The reorganisation of the structure of a Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (GIO-MDTM) in a tertiary centre with three care pathways is evaluated on added value. In a mixed method investigation, process indicators such as throughput times were analysed and stakeholders were interviewed regarding benefits and drawbacks of the reorganisation and current MDTM functioning. For the hepatobiliary care pathway, the time to treatment plan increased, but the time to start treatment reduced significantly. The percentage of patients treated within the Dutch standard of 63 days increased for the three care pathways. From the interviews, three themes emerged: added value of MDTMs, focus on planning integrated care and awareness of possible improvements. The importance of evaluating interventions in oncology care pathways is shown, including detecting unexpected drawbacks. The evaluation provides insight into complex dynamics of the care pathways and contributes with recommendations on functioning of an MDTM. Throughput times are only partly determined by oncology care pathway management, but have influence on the functioning of MDTMs. Process indicator information can help to reflect on integration of care in the region, resulting in an increase of patients treated within the Dutch standard.

Background/Objectives: Complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) lead to unplanned readmissions (UR), with a two- to threefold increase in admission costs. In this study, we aimed to create an understanding of the costs of complications and UR in this patient group. Furthermore, we aimed to generate a detailed cost overview that can be used to build a theoretical model to calculate the cost efficacy for prehabilitation. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database of patients who underwent a PD at our institute between 2013 and 2017. The total costs of the index hospital admission and UR related to the PD were collected. Results: Of the 160 patients; 35 patients (22%) had an uncomplicated course; 87 patients (54%) had minor complications, and 38 patients (24%) had severe complications. Median costs for an uncomplicated course were EUR 25.682, and for a complicated course, EUR 32.958 (p = 0.001). The median costs for minor complications were EUR 30.316, and for major complications, EUR 42.664 (p = 0.001). Costs were related to the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The median costs of patients with one or more UR were EUR 41.199. Conclusions: Complications after PD led to a EUR 4.634–EUR 16.982 (18–66%) increase in hospital costs. A UR led to a cost increase of EUR 12.567 (44%). Since hospital costs are directly related to the CCI, reduction in complications will lead to cost-effectiveness.

Background Liver surgery in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is associated with high postoperative morbidity because the tumor typically causes biliary obstruction. Preoperative biliary drainage is used to create a safer environment prior to liver surgery, but biliary drainage may be harmful when severe drainage-related complications deteriorate the patients’ condition or increase the risk of postoperative morbidity. Biliary drainage can cause cholangitis/cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration. Two methods of preoperative biliary drainage are mostly applied: endoscopic biliary drainage, which is currently used in most regional centers before referring patients for surgical treatment, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Both methods are associated with severe drainage-related complications, but two small retrospective series found a lower incidence in the number of preoperative complications after percutaneous drainage compared to endoscopic drainage (18-25% versus 38-60%, respectively). The present study randomizes patients with potentially resectable PHC and biliary obstruction between preoperative endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Methods/Design The study is a multi-center trial with an “all-comers” design, randomizing patients between endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All patients selected to potentially undergo a major liver resection for presumed PHC are eligible for inclusion in the study provided that the biliary system in the future liver remnant is obstructed (even if they underwent previous inadequate endoscopic drainage). Primary outcome measure is the total number of severe preoperative complications between randomization and exploratory laparotomy. The study is designed to detect superiority of percutaneous drainage: a provisional sample size of 106 patients is required to detect a relative decrease of 50% in the number of severe preoperative complications (alpha = 0.95; beta = 0.8). Interim analysis after inclusion of 53 patients (50%) will provide the definitive sample size. Secondary outcome measures encompass the success of biliary drainage, quality of life, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Discussion The DRAINAGE trial is designed to identify a difference in the number of severe drainage-related complications after endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients selected to undergo a major liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register [ NTR4243 , 11 October 2013].

IntroductionEnd-ischaemic preservation of a donor liver by dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (DHOPE) for 2 hours prior to transplantation is sufficient to mitigate ischaemia-reperfusion damage and fully restore cellular energy levels. Clinical studies have shown beneficial outcomes after transplantation of liver grafts preserved by DHOPE compared with static cold storage. In addition to graft reconditioning, DHOPE may also be used to prolong preservation time, which could facilitate logistics for allocation and transplantation globally.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective, pseudo-randomised, dual-arm, IDEAL-D (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long term study-Framework for Devices) stage 2 clinical device trial designed to determine safety and feasibility of prolonged DHOPE (DHOPE-PRO). The end-time of the donor hepatectomy will determine whether the graft will be assigned to the intervention (16:00–3:59 hour) or to the control arm (4:00–15:59 hour). In total, 36 livers will be included in the study. Livers in the intervention group (n=18) will undergo DHOPE-PRO (≥4 hours) until implantation the following morning, whereas livers in the control group (n=18) will undergo regular DHOPE (2 hours) prior to implantation. The primary endpoint of this study is a composite of the occurrence of all (serious) adverse events during DHOPE and up to 30 days after liver transplantation.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Groningen, METc2020.126 in June 2020, and the study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Registry (https://www.trialregister.nl/) prior to initiation.Trial registration numberNL8740.