Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for pancreatic cystic tumors]

BACKGROUND

The indications for resection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are often complex and the operative risk has to be balanced against the risk of malignant transformation. The aim of the study was to provide a synopsis of the current treatment results of minimally invasive surgery for PCL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline database (PubMed). Subsequently, the retrieved literature was selectively reviewed.

RESULTS

No published prospective randomized controlled trials have yet addressed the comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery of PCL; however, retrospective case studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and a comparable morbidity after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP), pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), central (CP) or total pancreatectomy and enucleation. Whereas most DPs are performed laparoscopically, the experience of minimally invasive PD has been consolidated for the robot-assisted approach but is concentrated in only a few centers. The number of published reports on minimally invasive organ-sparing pancreas procedures (e. g. CP or enucleation) for PCL is scarce; however, the available (selected) results are promising.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery for PCL has the potential to reduce the operative trauma to the patients, while at the same time causing comparable or less morbidity. This requires an increasing specialization of complex minimally invasive resections. The clinical use of robotic systems will grow for the latter cases. A prospective registry of the results should be mandatory for quality management.