Perioperative outcomes and survival in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have not evaluated the surgical difficulty of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of elderly age on the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, focusing on surgical difficulty.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Kansai Rosai Hospital between September 2012 and December 2023. Perioperative outcomes were investigated between the elderly (>75 years) and non-elderly (≤75 years) groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included: 26 and 30 in the elderly and non-elderly groups, respectively. The median operative time was significantly shorter in the elderly group than in the non-elderly group (324 vs. 414 min, p = .022), but other surgical outcomes were not significantly different including oncological factors. The median difficulty score was similar between the elderly and non-elderly groups (6 vs. 7, respectively; p = .699). The incidences of postoperative complications and pancreatic fistulas were not significantly different in the elderly and non-elderly groups (23% vs. 43%, p = .159, and 19% vs. 36%, p = .236, respectively), even though analyzed in subgroups with low-to-intermediate or high difficulty score.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and feasibility of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer were not significantly different between elderly and non-elderly patients, even when surgical difficulty was considered. This surgical procedure can be safe and feasible for elderly patients.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

METHODS

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

CONCLUSION

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.

Modified Frailty Index to Assess Risk in Elderly Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Background

To compare the postoperative course of elderly patients (≥70 years) submitted to minimally invasive (MIDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and to evaluate if the modified Frailty Index (mFI) predicts the surgical course of elderly patients submitted to DP.

Methods

Data of patients aged ≥70 who underwent DP at a single institution between March 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. A 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Then, postoperative complications were compared between the two groups (MIDP vs. ODP). Additionally, the entire cohort of DP elderly patients was stratified according to the mFI into three groups: non-frail (mFI = 0), mildly frail (mFI = 1/2), or severely frail (mFI = 3) and then compared.

Results

A total of 204 patients were analyzed. After PSM, 40 MIDP and 80 ODP patients were identified. The complications considered stratified homogenously between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences. The severity of the postoperative course increased as mFI did among the three groups regarding any complication (p = 0.022), abdominal collection (p = 0.014), pulmonary complication (p = 0.001), postoperative confusion (p = 0.047), Clavien-Dindo severity ≥3 events (p = 0.036), and length of stay (p = 0.018).

Conclusions

Elderly patients can be safely submitted to MIDP. The mFI identifies frail elderly patients more prone to develop surgical and non-surgical complications after DP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-021-06436-2.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous abdominal surgery can be a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Today, distal pancreatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically. This study investigates the consequences of prior upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP from April 1997 to January 2020 were included. Based on the history and type of PUAS, these were categorized into three groups: minimally invasive (I), open (II), and no PUAS (III). To reduce possible confounding factors, the groups were matched in 1:2:4 fashion based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology grade.

RESULTS

After matching, 30, 60, and 120 patients were included in the minimally invasive, open and no PUAS groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of intraoperative outcomes. Postoperative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were similar. Open PUAS was associated with higher Comprehensive Complication Index (33.7 vs 20.9 vs 26.2, p = 0.03) and greater proportion of patients with ≥ 2 complications (16.7 vs 0 vs 6.7%, p = 0.02) compared with minimally invasive and no PUAS. Male sex, overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasia, and open PUAS were risk factors for severe morbidity in the univariable analysis. Only open PUAS was statistically significant in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

PUAS does not impair the feasibility and safety of LDP as its perioperative outcomes are largely comparable to those in patients without PUAS. However, open PUAS increases the burden and severity of postoperative complications.

Safety and Efficacy of Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Octogenarians

Backgrounds: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains the only hope of a cure in selected patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). With an aging population, there will be an increasing number of very elderly patients being diagnosed with PAC of whom a selected proportion would be suitable for PD. However, the literature on outcomes of elderly patients after PD remains ambiguous. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of PD in octogenarians with PAC.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 304 patients with PAC undergoing PD. Patients were divided into two age groups using age of 80 years old as the cut-off.

Results: Overall mortality and major morbidity rates were 0.5 and 18.5%, respectively. The octogenarian group had a higher rate of mortality (6.3%, n = 1, p < 0.001), a higher rate of major morbidity (37.5%, n = 6, p = 0.042) and a longer hospital stay (p = 0.035). However, median survival of octogenarians was 15.6 months. Multivariate analysis showed age was not identified as a prognostic factor for major morbidity and overall survival.

Conclusion: Age alone should not be an exclusion criterion for consideration of PD. With careful selection, PD can be safely performed in octogenarians. Elderly patients should be referred to a specialized unit for an objective assessment to determine the suitability for this aggressive but potential curative approach.

Surgical Outcomes Following Early Drain Removal After Distal Pancreatectomy in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

The efficacy and safety of early drain removal following distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the short-term surgical outcomes following early drain removal after distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven patients aged ≥70 years who underwent distal pancreatectomy at our Hospital were enrolled in the study. Data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes following early drain removal after distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients.

RESULTS

The incidence of pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy in the early-removal group was significantly lower vs. the conventional group (p=0.022). Multivariate analysis revealed that early drain removal was an independent factor for reducing the risk of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients (p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

Early drain removal following distal pancreatectomy is an effective and safe surgical perioperative management procedure to prevent pancreatic fistula in elderly patients.

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.

RESULTS

After screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

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.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients by short-term surgical effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of 55 non-elderly patients (< 70 years), 27 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) underwent LPD, and 19 elderly patients underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in biliopancreatic surgery department of Huadong Hospital, affiliated to Fudan University, from Jan 2015 to Jan 2018. Patients were divided into 3 groups: LPD aged < 70 years, LPD aged ≥ 70 years, and OPD aged ≥ 70 years, according to their age at admission and surgical approach in order to compare baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 101 patients were included in this study; 59 cases were male; 42 cases were female; mean age was 66 years old. Elderly LPD patients seemed to have higher overall morbidity (41% vs. 20%, P = 0.05) compared to non-elderly patients. This difference is even more significant in our multivariable analysis model with an odds ratio of 4.48 (95% CI 1.31-17.87, P = 0.018). The 90-days mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and post-operative hospital stay (POHS) were similar in two groups. Elderly LPD patients had less EBL and shorter POHS than elderly OPD patients. However, the mortality and morbidity rate were comparable in these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Aging patients have higher overall morbidity than younger patients in LPD. However, for aging population who need to undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy, LPD might have some advantages over OPD.

Age-related risks of complications after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine and cystic neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) and pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) are often incidentally found in older adults, requiring careful consideration between operative management and watchful waiting. This study analyzes the short-term complications associated with distal pancreatectomy (DP) for PNET and PCN in older adults to inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Patients undergoing DP for PNET and PCN were analyzed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database and the pancreatectomy procedure-targeted dataset. Associations between decade of age and 30-day outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

1626 patients were analyzed from 2014 to 2015. 692 (42.6%) were younger than 60 years, 507 (31.2%) were sexagenarians, 342 (21.0%) were septuagenarians, and 85 (5.2%) were octogenarians. Minimally invasive approaches were used in 62.7%. While septuagenarians and octogenarians constituted 26.3% of the cohort, they were affected by 55.6% of reintubations, 66.7% of failures to wean, 82.4% of myocardial infarctions, and 57.1% of septic shock. Septuagenarians and octogenarians had longer hospital stays, as compared to those younger than 60 years.

CONCLUSION

Septuagenarians and octogenarians are disproportionately affected by perioperative complications after DP for PNET and PCN. Careful patient selection and thorough counseling should be provided when surgery is considered.

A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is increasingly done by laparoscopy but data from routine practise are scarce. We describe practise in a national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Patient Register of all patients undergoing DP from 2012 to 2016. National resection rates were analysed. Short-term outcomes include length of stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 554 procedures, 327 (59%) were laparoscopic. Median age was 66 years (iqr 55-72) and 52% were women. Resection rates increased during the period for all DP (from 1.76 to 2.39 per 100.000/yr), and significantly for laparoscopic DP (adjusted R-square 0.858; P = 0.015). Elderly patients had more resection (r₂ = 0.11; P = 0.019). Splenectomy (n = 427; 77%) was less likely with laparoscopy (laparoscopy 72% vs open 84%, respectively; OR 0.64, 95% c.i. 0.42-0.97; P = 0.035). Multivisceral resections occurred more often in open DP (5.3% vs 1.2% for laparoscopy, OR 4.51, 1.44-14.2; P = 0.008). Reoperation occurred in 34 (6%), readmission in 109 (20%), and mortality in 8 (1.4%). Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSION

Use of DP increases in the population, particularly in the elderly, with use of laparoscopic access and an association with a reduced hospital stay.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Distal pancreatectomy is well suited to the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides the same postoperative recovery advantages reputed to minimal access surgery. However, there have been fears as to the safety of LDP in terms of life-threatening intra-operative events and post-operative complications, adequate carcinological outcomes as compared to traditional (open) distal pancreatectomy (ODP) when performed for cancer, as well as to whether the laparoscopic approach is well adapted to the variety of diseases that may affect the pancreas (ranging from trauma to benign or malignant disease) and whether the minimal access approach is well adapted to perform pancreatic surgery safely in the obese, the elderly or the frail. In this review of the literature, we sought to determine whether LDP was as safe, provided the same oncological outcomes and was applicable to all diseases involving the body and tail of the pancreas, and to particular patient characteristics, compared to the traditional open approach. Last we looked at cost issues. We concluded that this review of the literature allowed to state that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe for a wide range of diseases, both benign and malignant. Morbidity, mortality, and probably, also, carcinological outcomes are comparable to open surgery. The overall costs are similar but the advantages of minimal access surgery make it the preferred approach, once the surgical expertise is acquired and present.

Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution

Introduction

This study aims to study the changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at a single centre.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective review of sixty consecutive patients who underwent MIDP from September 2006 to November 2016 at a single institution. To study the evolution of MIDP, the study population was divided into three groups consisting of twenty patients (Group I, Group II and Group III).

Results

Sixty patients underwent MIDP with 11 (18.3%) requiring open conversions. The median operation time was 305 (range: 85-775) min and the median post-operative stay was 6 (range: 3-73) days. Fifteen procedures were spleen-saving pancreatectomies. Major post-operative morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 12 (20.0%) patients and there was no mortality or reoperations. There were 33 (55.0%) pancreatic fistulas, of which 15 (25.0%) were Grade B fistulas of which 12 (20.0%) required percutaneous drainage. Comparison between the three groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the frequency of procedures performed, increase in robotic-assisted procedures and proportion of asymptomatic tumours resected. There also tended to be non-significant decrease in open conversion rates from 25% to 5% between the three groups and increase in tumour size resected from 24 to 40 mm.

Conclusion

Comparison between the three groups demonstrated that MIDP was performed with increased frequency. There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of resections performed for asymptomatic tumours and resections performed through robotic assistance. There was also a non-significant trend towards a decrease in open conversions and increase in the size of tumours resected.