We propose a new flowchart for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC) in the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). Grade III AC was not indicated for straightforward laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Lap-C). Following analysis of subsequent clinical investigations and drawing on Big Data in particular, TG18 proposes that some Grade III AC can be treated by Lap-C when performed at advanced centers with specialized surgeons experienced in this procedure and for patients that satisfy certain strict criteria. For Grade I, TG18 recommends early Lap-C if the patients meet the criteria of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≤5 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA-PS) ≤2. For Grade II AC, if patients meet the criteria of CCI ≤5 and ASA-PS ≤2, TG18 recommends early Lap-C performed by experienced surgeons; and if not, after medical treatment and/or gallbladder drainage, Lap-C would be indicated. TG18 proposes that Lap-C is indicated in Grade III patients with strict criteria. These are that the patients have favorable organ system failure, and negative predictive factors, who meet the criteria of CCI ≤3 and ASA-PS ≤2 and who are being treated at an advanced center (where experienced surgeons practice). If the patient is not considered suitable for early surgery, TG18 recommends early/urgent biliary drainage followed by delayed Lap-C once the patient's overall condition has improved. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at:

In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo-biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail-out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail-out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvi ere's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at:

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Autophagic PSCs produce ECM molecules and interleukin 6 and are associated with shorter survival times and disease recurrence in patients with pancreatic cancer. Inhibitors of PSC autophagy might reduce pancreatic tumor invasiveness by altering the tumor stroma.

Background/purpose This study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared with the open method using meta-analysis. Methods A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated by metaanalysis using a fixed effect model and random effects model. Results Twenty-four studies of LDP and three studies of LPD matched the selection criteria, including 2,904 patients of DP and 109 patients of PD. Compared with ODP, LDP showed statistically significant differences with respect to less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, lower wound infection rates, lower morbidity rates, and shorter hospital stays. LPD showed significantly longer operative times compared with OPD. There was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between laparoscopic pancreatectomy and the open technique. Conclusions This meta-analysis included the largest number of patients and number of articles comparing LDP and ODP, and LDP showed significantly better perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis suggests that LDP is a reasonable operative method for benign tumors and some ductal carcinomas in the pancreas.