Background Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is an evidence-based option to treat anastomotic leakages of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, but the technical challenges and clinical outcomes of patients with large defects remain poorly described. Methods All patients with leakages of the upper GI tract that were treated with endoscopic negative pressure therapy at our institution from 2012–2021 were analyzed. Patients with large defects (>30 mm) as an indicator of complex treatment were compared to patients with smaller defects (control group). Results Ninety-two patients with postoperative anastomotic or staplerline leakages were identified, of whom 20 (21.7%) had large defects. Compared to the control group, these patients required prolonged therapy (42 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (63 vs. 26 days, p < 0.001) and developed significantly more septic complications (40 vs. 17.6%, p = 0.027.) which often necessitated additional endoscopic and/or surgical/interventional treatments (45 vs. 17.4%, p = 0.007.) Nevertheless, a resolution of leakages was achieved in 80% of patients with large defects, which was similar compared to the control group (p = 0.42). Multiple leakages, especially on the opposite side, along with other local unfavorable conditions, such as foreign material mass, limited access to the defect or extensive necrosis occurred significantly more often in cases with large defects (p < 0.001). Conclusions Overall, our study confirms that EVT for leakages even from large defects of the upper GI tract is feasible in most cases but comes with significant technical challenges.

Background International consensus criteria (ICC) have redefined borderline resectability for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) according to three dimensions: anatomical (BR-A), biological (BR-B), and conditional (BR-C). The present definition acknowledges that resectability is not just about the anatomic relationship between the tumour and vessels but that biological and conditional dimensions also are important. Methods Patients’ tumours were retrospectively defined borderline resectable according to ICC. The study cohort was grouped into either BR-A or BR-B and compared with patients considered primarily resectable (R). Differences in postoperative complications, pathological reports, overall (OS), and disease-free survival were assessed. Results A total of 345 patients underwent resection for PDAC. By applying ICC in routine preoperative assessment, 30 patients were classified as stage BR-A and 62 patients as stage BR-B. In total, 253 patients were considered R. The cohort did not contain BR-C patients. No differences in postoperative complications were detected. Median OS was significantly shorter in BR-A (15 months) and BR-B (12 months) compared with R (20 months) patients (BR-A vs. R: p = 0.09 and BR-B vs. R: p < 0.001). CA19-9, as the determining factor of BR-B patients, turned out to be an independent prognostic risk factor for OS. Conclusions Preoperative staging defining surgical resectability in PDAC according to ICC is crucial for patient survival. Patients with PDAC BR-B should be considered for multimodal neoadjuvant therapy even if considered anatomically resectable.