An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists was convened on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of gallbladder carcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines. In summary, within high incidence areas, the assessment of routine gallbladder specimens should include the microscopic evaluation of a minimum of three sections and the cystic duct margin; specimens with dysplasia or proven cancer should be extensively sampled. Provided the patient is medically fit for surgery, data support the resection of all gallbladder polyps of >1.0 cm in diameter and those with imaging evidence of vascular stalks. The minimum staging evaluation of patients with suspected or proven gallbladder cancer includes contrasted cross-sectional imaging and diagnostic laparoscopy. Adequate lymphadenectomy includes assessment of any suspicious regional nodes, evaluation of the aortocaval nodal basin, and a goal recovery of at least six nodes. Patients with confirmed metastases to N2 nodal stations do not benefit from radical resection and should receive systemic and/or palliative treatments. Primary resection of patients with early T-stage (T1b-2) disease should include en bloc resection of adjacent liver parenchyma. Patients with T1b, T2 or T3 disease that is incidentally identified in a cholecystectomy specimen should undergo re-resection unless this is contraindicated by advanced disease or poor performance status. Re-resection should include complete portal lymphadenectomy and bile duct resection only when needed to achieve a negative margin (R0) resection. Patients with preoperatively staged T3 or T4 N1 disease should be considered for clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Following R0 resection of T2-4 disease in N1 gallbladder cancer, patients should be considered for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy.

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.

Trainees significantly improved their advanced laparoscopic skills to a level compared with expert surgeons. More importantly, these acquired skills were transferred to a more complex live model.

Minimally invasive approaches to gallbladder cancer and intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma seem feasible and safe in the short term. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed to see if there are any long-term disadvantages or advantages to laparoscopic resection of extrapancreatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Aims: To present the surgical experience in a regional unit, analysing the post-operative outcome, and determining risk factors for survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head carcinoma. Methods: Data were collected on 251 patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma (133), ampullary carcinomas (88) and distal common bile duct (30), between 1987 and 2002. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical, surgical and histopathological records were examined by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify the independent prognostic predictors of survival. Results: Median actuarial survival for carcinoma of the pancreatic head, ampulla and distal bile duct were 13.4, 35.5 and 16 months, respectively; p < 0.0001. On univariate analysis for the whole series, the age ≤60, tumour of the head of the pancreas, lymph node positive, resection margin R1, poorly differentiated tumours, and portal vein invasion significantly decreased survival. On multivariate analysis, poor tumour differentiation, surgical margin, lymph node metastases, and age independently influence survival. Mortality and morbidity were 4.8 and 29.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumours is the only therapy that may cure patients and can be performed safely in centres with significant experience.