BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of virtual simulators as a means to acquire hands-on exposure to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The present study aimed to assess the outcome and construct validity of virtual ERCP when training on the GI II Mentor simulator. METHODS: A group of seven experienced endoscopists were compared with 31 novices. After a short introduction, they were requested to carry out three virtual ERCP procedures: diagnosing and removing a common bile duct (CBD) stone; diagnosing and taking brush cytology from a hilar stenosis; and, finally, diagnosing and treating a cystic leakage with a BD stent. For each task, the total time required to complete the task, time required to correctly view the papilla, total time of irradiation, time to deep cannulation, time to define diagnosis, time to complete sphincterotomy, and time to complete the respective intervention were measured. Cannulation of the BD, correct diagnosis, sphincterotomy, and time to complete intervention were assessed by an assessor blinded to the status of the endoscopist who performed the virtual ERCP. RESULTS: The time required to visualize the papilla and to cannulate deeply when removing the BD stone was significantly shorter for the experts (both  < 0.05). The time to visualize the papilla, cannulate deeply, reach a diagnosis, complete sphincterotomy, and complete the intervention was significantly shorter for the experts when managing cystic leakage (all  < 0.05). In diagnosing and taking brush cytology from a hilar stenosis, there was only a trend toward the experts needing less time for the deep cannulation of the BD ( = 0.077). CONCLUSION: The performance differed between experts and novices, especially in the management of cystic leakage. This corroborates the construct validity of the GI II Mentor simulator.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE (S): Completion pancreatectomy (C.P.) is one acceptable treatment of choice in clinical scenarios such as management of post-pancreatectomy complications and recurrence in the pancreatic remnant. Studies referring to completion pancreatectomy as a distinct operation are limited, without emphasizing at the operation itself, rather reporting completion pancreatectomy as a possible option for treatment of various diseases. The identification of indications of CP in various pathologies and the clinical outcomes are therefore mandatory. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed and Scopus Databases (February 2020),guided by the PRISMA protocol, for all studies reporting CP as a surgical procedure with reference at indications for performing it combined with postoperative morbidity and/or mortality. RESULTS: Out of 1647 studies, 32 studies from 10 countries with 2775 patients in total, of whom 561 (20.2%) CPs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Inclusion year ranged from 1964 to 2018 and were published from 1992 until 2019. 17 studies with a total number of 249 CPs were performed for post-pancreatectomy complications. Mortality rate was 44.5% (111 out of 249). Morbidity rate was (72.6%). 12 studies with 225 CPs were performed for isolated local recurrence after initial resection with a morbidity rate of 21.5% and 0% mortality rate in the early postoperative period. Two studies with a total number of 12 patients reported CP as a treatment option for recurrent neuroendocrine neoplasms. The mortality in those studies was 8% (1/12) and the mean morbidity rate was 58.3% (7/12). Finally, CP for refractory chronic pancreatitis was presented in one study with morbidity and mortality rates of 19% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Completion pancreatectomy is a distinct treatment option for various pathologies. Morbidity and mortality rates depend on the indications of performing CP, the status performance of the patients and whether the operation is performed electively or urgently

Pancreatoduodenectomy remains a complex abdominal operation for hpb surgeons. Significant complications keep on occurring to many patients undergoing Whipple procedure. We present ten patients, who required completion pancreatectomy in the early postoperative period after Whipples procedure, due to postoperative complications. Indications for completion pancreatectomy included: Sepsis secondary to uncontrolled GRADE C postoperative pancreatic fistula, pancreatic leak and bleeding, postoperative hemorrhage, pancreatic leak with gastrointestinal anastomosis dehiscence, and hepaticojejunal anastomosis dehiscence combined with hemorrhage. Completion pancreatectomy was carried out at a mean interval of 9 days following Whipple procedure. Six patients (60%) survived the operation and discharged from the hospital, with a median survival of 21.3 months. Four patients (40%) died in the early post-operative period due to sepsis (10%) and multiple organ failure (30%). Completion pancreatectomy after pancreatoduodenectomy is rarely indicated and it can be considered as a salvage procedure in the management of severe life-threatening post pancreatic surgery complications.

BACKGROUND: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC). METHODS: The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity. FINDINGS: On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84-1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95-1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79-1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16-1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02-1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03-1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3-3.52], p < 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62-3.02], p < 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55-5.73], p < 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02-1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91-1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used. INTERPRETATION: In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international collaborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit. FUNDING: Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund.