Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for malignancy

The short- and long-term effect of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy

OBJECTIVE

To explore the short- and long-term effect of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy.

METHODS

From June 2013 to June 2018, 70 patients with gastric cancer underwent total gastrectomy combined with spleno-pancreatectomy involving 37 cases in laparoscopy group and 33 cases in laparotomy group. The intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients in the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopy group, the operation time and the number of positive lymph node dissection was similar to the laparotomy group. Statistical difference was found in intraoperative bleeding [(79.19 ± 39.63)ml vs (214.39 ± 152.47)m1], the number of lymph node dissection [(47.27 ± 13.94) vs (35.45 ± 9.81)], the first time of aerofluxus [(2.92 ± 0.76)d vs (3.76 ± 1.09)d], the first fluid intake time [(7.49 ± 0.96)d vs (8.27 ± 1.91)d] and the postoperative hospital stay [(11.95 ± 1.90)d vs (15.39 ± 4.07)d] (P < 0.05), So the laparoscopy group was significantly superior to the laparotomy group. The incidences of postoperative complications in laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group were 35.13% and 27.27%, and the difference was not statistically significant. (P > 0.05). No stark difference in postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo Classification (P > 0.05). The K-M survival curve showed no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy is feasible and safe, which can remove more perigastric lymph nodes. With advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and fast postoperative recovery, it cannot increase postoperative complications and long-term survival are comparable to open surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections in two medium-sized medical centres

To analyze the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic neoplasms, in two medium-volume centers in Northern Italy, a retrospective chart review was performed in the operative registries, searching for patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery via laparoscopy, irrespective of the final pathological nature of the resected neoplasm. For each case, a standard data extraction form was completed and the following data was extracted: age and sex, type of resection, estimated blood loss, length of the operation, number of harvested nodes, post-operative pancreatic fistula, major post-operative complications, mortality and final pathological diagnosis. The systematic literature research was also undertaken and the reported results were analyzed. A total of 55 cases were recorded, including 39 distal pancreatectomies and 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies. The most frequent indications leading to surgery were ductal adenocarcinoma (26 pts) and cystic neoplasm (22 pts). No post-operative death occurred in this series; pancreatic fistula occurred in 64% of distal pancreatectomies and 22% of pancreaticoduodenectomies. The mean operating times were 178' and 572', respectively. Both distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy proved to be feasible and were safely performed by laparoscopy, in two centers with medium-volume pancreatic caseload.

International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) "Coimbatore Summit Statements"

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as "Coimbatore Summit Statements".

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes between Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: an Analysis of 1815 Patients from the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-Targeted Pancreatectomy Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is gaining acceptance for distal pancreatectomy (DP). Nevertheless, no multi-institutional data exist to demonstrate the ideal clinical circumstances for use and the efficacy of the robot compared to the open or laparoscopic techniques, in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The 2014 ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy data for patients undergoing DP were analyzed. Demographics and clinicopathological and perioperative variables were compared between the three approaches. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred fifteen DPs comprised 921 open distal pancreatectomies (ODPs), 694 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDPs), and 200 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDPs). The three groups were comparable with respect to demographics, ASA score, relevant comorbidities, and malignant histology subtype. Compared to the ODP group, patients undergoing RDP had lower T-stages of disease (P = 0.0192), longer operations (P = 0.0030), shorter hospital stays (P < 0.0001), and lower postoperative 30-day morbidity (P = 0.0476). Compared to the LDP group, RDPs were longer operations (P < 0.0001) but required fewer concomitant vascular resections (P = 0.0487) and conversions to open surgery (P = 0.0068). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.0236), malignant histology (P = 0.0124), pancreatic reconstruction (P = 0.0006), and vascular resection (P = 0.0008) were the strongest predictors of performing an ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

The open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy offer particular advantages for well-selected patients and specific clinicopathological contexts; therefore, clearly demonstrating the most suitable use and superiority of one technique over another remains challenging.

Pancreatic resection in the era of laparoscopy: State of Art. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding interventions is the pancreatic surgery that is seen as intraoperatively risky and with high postoperative morbi-mortality rate. In order to understand the complexity of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, we performed a systematic review of literature.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of literature was performed regarding laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach in pancreas resections has been extensively reported as safe and feasible regarding pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic enucleation. Compared to open approach, no benefit in morbi-mortality has been demonstrated (except for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy) and no controlled randomized trials have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is not workable in all patients and patient selection is not standardized. Additionally, most optimistic reports considering laparoscopic approach are produced by tertiary centres. Currently, two tasks should be accomplished 1°) standardization of the laparoscopic pancreatic procedures 2°) comparative trials to assess endpoint benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection compared with open procedures.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resection for cancer represents a real challenge for every surgeon. Recent improvements in laparoscopic experience, minimally invasive surgical techniques and instruments make now the minimally invasive approach a real "triumph." There is no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has replaced with great success conventional surgery in many fields, including surgical oncology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

However, its progress in pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma has been dramatically slow. Recent evidence supports the notion that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible and that is becoming the procedure of choice mainly for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. On the other side, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has not yet been widely accepted and there is enormous skepticism when applied for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the potential applications of minimally invasive surgical approaches for this aggressive, heterogeneous, and enigmatic type of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Moreover, the potential future applications of these approaches are discussed with the hope to improve the quality of life as well as the survival rates of pancreatic cancer patients.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes Following Selective Application of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Data are sparse regarding patient selection criteria or evaluating oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Having prospectively limited LPD to patients with resectable disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, we evaluated perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of LPD compared to a similar cohort of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Consecutive patients (November 2010-February 2014) undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for periampullary adenocarcinoma were reviewed. Patients were excluded from further analysis for benign pathology, conversion to OPD for portal vein resection, and contraindications for LPD not related to their malignancy. Outcomes of patients undergoing LPD were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner against a cohort of patients undergoing OPD.

RESULTS

These selection criteria resulted in offering LPD to 77 % of all cancer patients. Compared to the OPD cohort, LPD was associated with significant reductions in wound infections (16 vs. 34 %; P = 0.038), pancreatic fistula (17 vs. 36 %; P = 0.032), and median hospital stay (9 vs. 12 days; P = 0.025). Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between patients undergoing LPD vs. OPD for periampullary adenocarcinoma (median OS 27.9 vs. 23.5 months; P = 0.955) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 28 vs. 22 patients; median OS 20.7 vs. 21.1 months; P = 0.703).

CONCLUSIONS

The selective application of LPD for periampullary malignancies results in a high degree of eligibility as well as significant reductions in length of stay, wound infections, and pancreatic fistula. Overall survival after LPD is similar to OPD.

Robotic pancreatectomies

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging fields in general surgery. Its complexity is related to the severity of the disease and the technical skills required for surgical approach. Given this, most pancreatic resections are performed through classic open surgery. Minimally invasive approaches are gradually gaining widespread popularity also in this specific setting, as for distal resections and enucleations. The robotic platform, due to its 3-dimensional vision and articulated movements, represents the natural progress of laparoscopic surgery overcoming the technical defaults and opening up the possibility to perform major pancreatic resections as pancreaticoduodenectomies. This review focuses on the impact of robotic platform in pancreatic surgery in terms of surgical and oncological outcome.

Getting Started with Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is It Worth It?

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the safety and cost of introducing minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) to a surgeon's practice.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

All MIPDs performed between December 2011 and July 2013 were compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) cases by the same surgeon. The primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity, and re-operation. Secondary outcomes were perioperative and oncologic outcomes and cost. MIPD include total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) and laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD), where a small incision is used for reconstruction. Bivariate comparisons of outcomes were performed using nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

In total, 44 pancreaticoduodenectomies were performed: 15 MIPDs (2 TLPDs and 13 LAPDs) and 29 OPDs. One death occurred in each group. Major complication rates were not significantly different (33% for MIPD versus 17% for OPD); however, there was a trend toward more re-operation after MIPD compared with OPD (20% versus 3%; P = .07). The incidence of pancreatic leak (20% for MIPD versus 14% for OPD), biliary leak (0% versus 7%, respectively), abscess formation (27% versus 14%, respectively), and intraabdominal hemorrhage (13% versus 3%, respectively) were not significantly different. MIPD achieved equivalent oncologic outcomes as OPD with 100% R0 margin and adequate lymph node retrieval. There was no statistical difference in median operative time (342 minutes for MIPD versus 358 minutes for OPD), length of stay (8 versus 9 days, respectively), operating room expenses (Canadian) ($7246.0 versus $6912.0, respectively), or total cost (Canadian) per case ($15,034.0 versus $18,926.0, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD and OPD had similar safety and cost in this introductory series. However, a trend toward a higher rate of re-operation for pancreatic leak suggests the need for caution in introducing this novel technique.

Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Large multicenter series on outcomes and predictors of survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are scarce.

METHODS

Adults who underwent DP for PDAC in 17 Dutch pancreatic centers between January 2005 and September 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was survival, and predictors of survival were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 761 consecutive patients after DP were assessed, of whom 620 patients were excluded because of non-PDAC histopathology (n = 616) or a lack of data (n = 4), leaving a total of 141 patients included in the study [45 % (n = 63) male, mean age 64 years (SD = 10)]. Multivisceral resection was performed in 43 patients (30 %) and laparoscopic resection was performed in 7 patients (5 %). A major complication (Clavien-Dindo score of III or higher) occurred in 46 patients (33 %). Mean tumor size was 44 mm (SD 23), and histopathological examination showed 70 R0 resections (50 %), while 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3 and 6 %, respectively. Overall, 63 patients (45 %) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median survival was 17 months [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21], with a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 8-29). Cumulative survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 64, 29, and 22 %, respectively. Independent predictors of worse postoperative survival were R1/R2 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.4], pT3/pT4 stage (HR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.3-2.9), a major complication (HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5), and not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.0-2.3).

CONCLUSION

Survival after DP for PDAC is poor and is related to resection margin, tumor stage, surgical complications, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies should assess to what extent prevention of surgical complications and more extensive use of adjuvant chemotherapy can improve survival.

Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results

Background

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy has been well described for benign pancreatic lesions, but its role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains open to debate. We report our results adopting a laparoscopic technique that obeys established oncologic principles of open distal pancreatosplenectomy.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of a prospectively kept database of 135 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy, performed across two sites in the UK and the Netherlands (07/2007–07/2015 Southampton and 10/2013–07/2015 Amsterdam). Primary outcomes were resection margin and lymph node retrieval. Secondary endpoints were other perioperative outcomes, including post-operative pancreatic fistula. Definition of radical resection was distance tumour to resection margin >1 mm. All patients underwent ‘laparoscopic radical left pancreatosplenectomy’ (LRLP) which involves ‘hanging’ the pancreas including Gerota’s fascia, followed by clockwise dissection, including formal lymphadenectomy.

Results

LRLP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed in 25 patients. Seven of the 25 patients (28 %) had extended resections, including the adrenal gland (n = 3), duodenojejunal flexure (n = 2) or transverse mesocolon (n = 3). Mean age was 68 years (54–81). Conversion rate was 0 %, mean operative time 240 min and mean blood loss 340 ml. Median intensive/high care and hospital stay were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Clavien–Dindo score 3+ complication rate was 12 % and ISGPF grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate 28 %; 90-day (or in-hospital) mortality was 0 %. The pancreatic resection margin was clear in all patients, and the posterior margin was involved (<1 mm) in 6 patients, meaning an overall R0 resection rate of 76 %. No resection margin was microscopically involved. Median nodal sample was 15 nodes (3–26). With an average follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year survival was 88 %.

Conclusions

A standardised laparoscopic approach to pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the left pancreas can be adopted safely. Our study shows that these results can be reproduced across multiple sites using the same technique.

Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies

Pancreatic surgery for malignancy is recognized as challenging for the surgeons and risky for the patients due to consistent perioperative morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the oncological long-term results are largely disappointing, even for those patients who experience an uneventfully hospital stay. Nevertheless, surgery still remains the cornerstone of a multidisciplinary treatment for pancreatic cancer. In order to maximize the benefits of surgery, the advent of both laparoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat pancreatic cancers with these new methodologies. The reduction of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pain, together with a shorter interval between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy, represent the potential advantages over conventional surgery. Lastly, a better cosmetic result, although not crucial in any cancerous patient, could also play a role by improving overall well-being and patient self-perception. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic surgery is, however, difficult in inexperienced hands and requires a dedicated training in both advanced laparoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The recent large diffusion of the da Vinci^® robotic platform seems to facilitate many of the technical maneuvers, such as anastomotic biliary and pancreatic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. The two main pancreatic operations, distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, are approachable by a minimally invasive path, but more limited interventions such as enucleation are also feasible. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be taken into account when considering the increasing costs of these newest technologies because the main concerns regarding these are the maintenance of all oncological standards and the lack of long-term follow-up. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatic cancer (and less aggressive tumors), with particular attention to the oncological results and widespread reproducibility of each technique.

Matched Case-Control Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) to treat periampullary tumors. The clinical outcomes of L-PPPD were compared with open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PPPD).

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, few studies have compared L-PPPD with O-PPPD. The safety, short-term clinical benefits, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD remain controversial.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2012, a total of 2192 patients diagnosed with periampullary tumors were treated with curative resection at our institution. Of these patients, 137 underwent a laparoscopic approach and 2055 an open technique. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for the L-PPPD group was longer than for the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was similar, as was the incidence of complications, such as pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric empting (P > 0.05). The mean number of analgesic injections administered was lower in the L-PPPD group than in the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001), and the mean duration of the postoperative hospital stays was shorter (P < 0.001). The surgical resection margins and the number of lymph nodes in the resected specimens did not differ between the 2 groups, and there was no significant difference in overall survival curves.

CONCLUSIONS

L-PPPD had the typical advantages of minimally invasive abdominal procedures, such as less pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery. It is technically safe and feasible, and has favorable oncologic outcomes in comparison with O-PPPD in patients with periampullary tumors.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) during the initial learning curve with open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of outcome and costs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the consecutive patients who underwent TLPD between December 2009 and April 2014 at our institution. The experiences of the initial 15 consecutive TLPD cases, considered as the initial learning curve of each surgeon, were compared with the same number of consecutive laparotomy cases with the same spectrum of diseases in terms of outcome and costs. Laparoscopic patients with conversion to open surgery were excluded. Preoperative demographic and comorbidity data were obtained. Postoperative data on intestinal movement, pain score, mortality, complications, and costs were obtained for analysis. Complications related to surgery included pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary leak, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. The total costs consisted of cost of surgery, anesthesia, and admission examination.

RESULTS: A total of 60 patients, including 30 consecutive laparoscopic cases and 30 consecutive open cases, were enrolled for review. Demographic and comorbidity characteristics of the two groups were similar. TLPD required a significantly longer operative time (513.17 ± 56.13 min vs 371.67 ± 85.53 min, P < 0.001). The TLPD group had significantly fewer mean numbers of days until bowel sounds returned (2.03 ± 0.55 d vs 3.83 ± 0.59 d, P < 0.001) and exhaustion (4.17 ± 0.75 d vs 5.37 ± 0.81 d, P < 0.001). The mean visual analogue score on postoperative day 4 was less in the TLPD group (3.5 ± 9.7 vs 4.47 ± 1.11, P < 0.05). No differences in surgery-related morbidities and mortality were observed between the two groups. Patients in the TLPD group recovered more quickly and required a shorter hospital stay after surgery (9.97 ± 3.74 d vs 11.87 ± 4.72 d, P < 0.05). A significant difference in the total cost was found between the two groups (TLPD 81317.43 ± 2027.60 RMB vs laparotomy 78433.23 ± 5788.12 RMB, P < 0.05). TLPD had a statistically higher cost for both surgery (24732.13 ± 929.28 RMB vs 19317.53 ± 795.94 RMB, P < 0.001) and anesthesia (6192.37 ± 272.77 RMB vs 5184.10 ± 146.93 RMB, P < 0.001), but a reduced cost for admission examination (50392.93 ± 1761.22 RMB vs 53931.60 ± 5556.94 RMB, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: TLPD is safe when performed by experienced pancreatobiliary surgeons during the initial learning curve, but has a higher cost than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery

More than a decade has passed since robotic technology was adopted for abdominal surgery, and virtually every gastrointestinal operation has since been shown to be feasible, safe, and reproducible using the robotic approach. Robotic pancreatic surgery had been left behind at the beginning, because they were technically challenging, requiring not only being very familiar with the robotic technology but also having a perfect knowledge of the anatomical variations, very frequent in this area. Nonetheless in the last few years many authors have approached the robot for pancreatic surgery with very promising results in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. The aim of this article is to review the literature on robotic pancreatic surgery and to define the state of the art use of the robotic approach for pancreatic disease.

Long-term results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancer-experience of 130 cases from a tertiary-care center in South India

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), although an advanced surgical procedure, is being increasingly used for pancreatic head and periampullary tumors. We present our experience of 15 years with the largest series in total LPD for periampullary and pancreatic head tumors with data on oncological outcome and long-term survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective and retrospective data of patients undergoing LPD from March 1998 to April 2013 were reviewed. Of the 150 cases, 20 cases of LPD (7 cases done for chronic pancreatitis and 13 cases for benign cystic tumors of the pancreas) have been excluded, which leaves us with 130 cases of LPD performed for malignant indications.

RESULTS

In total, 130 patients were chosen for the study. The male:female ratio was 1:1.6, with a median age of 54 years. We had one conversion to open surgery in our series, the overall postoperative morbidity was 29.7%, and the mortality rate was 1.53%. The pancreatic fistula rate was 8.46%. The mean operating time was 310±34 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 110±22 mL. The mean hospital stay was 8±2.6 days. Resected margins were positive in 9.23% of cases. The mean tumor size was 3.13±1.21 cm, and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 18.15±4.73. The overall 5-year actuarial survival was 29.42%, and the median survival was 33 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD has evolved over a period of two decades and has the potential to become the standard of care for select periampullary and pancreatic head tumors with acceptable oncological outcomes, especially in high-volume centers. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the advantages of LPD.

The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives

Surgery is the oldest oncological discipline, dating back thousands of years. Prior to the advent of anaesthesia and antisepsis 150 years ago, only the brave, desperate, or ill-advised patient underwent surgery because cure rates were low, and morbidity and mortality high. However, since then, cancer surgery has flourished, driven by relentless technical innovation and research. Historically, the mantra of the cancer surgeon was that increasingly radical surgery would enhance cure rates. The past 50 years have seen a paradigm shift, with the realization that multimodal therapy, technological advances, and minimally invasive techniques can reduce the need for, or the detrimental effects of, radical surgery. Preservation of form, function, and quality of life, without compromising survival, is the new mantra. Today's surgeons, no longer the uneducated technicians of history, are highly trained medical professionals and together with oncologists, radiologists, scientists, anaesthetists and nurses, have made cancer surgeries routine, safe, and highly effective. This article will review the major advances that have underpinned this evolution.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and short-term oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.

Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

BACKGROUND

The indications for minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatectomy have slowly increased as experience, techniques, and technology have improved and evolved to manage malignant lesions in selected patients without compromising safety and oncologic principles. There are sparse data comparing laparoscopic, robotic, and open distal pancreatectomy (DP).

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing DP at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed from a prospective database. Clinicopathologic and survival data were analyzed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent DP via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

Eight hundred five DP were performed during the study period, comprising 37 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP), 131 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 637 open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). The 3 groups were similar with respect to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, sex ratio, body mass index, pancreatic fistula rate, and 90-day morbidity and mortality. Patients in the ODP group were generally older (p = 0.001), had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and had a trend toward a longer hospital stay (p = 0.05). Of the significant preoperative variables, visceral fat was predictive of conversion on multivariate analysis (p = 0.003). Oncologic outcomes in the adenocarcinoma cases were similar for the 3 groups, with high rates of R0 resection (88% to 100%). The ODP group had a higher lymph node yield than the LDP and RDP groups (15.4, [SD 8.7] vs 10.4 [SD 8.0] vs 12[SD 7.2], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP and LDP were comparable with respect to most perioperative outcomes, with no clear advantage of one approach over the other. Both of these MIS techniques may have advantages over ODP in well-selected patients. All approaches achieved a similarly high rate of R0 resection for patients with adenocarcinoma.

Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

In comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, but comparative cost data for the two approaches are limited.

METHODS

Records of all distal pancreatectomies carried out from January 2009 to June 2013 were reviewed and stratified according to operative complexity. Patient factors and outcomes were recorded. Total variable costs (TVCs) were tabulated for each patient, and stratified by category [e.g. 'floor', 'operating room' (OR), 'radiology']. Costs for index admissions and 30-day readmissions were compared between LDP and ODP groups.

RESULTS

Of 153 procedures, 115 (70 LDP, 45 ODP) were selected for analysis. The TVC of the index admission was US$3420 less per patient in the LDP group (US$10 480 versus US$13 900; P = 0.06). Although OR costs were significantly greater in the LDP cohort (US$5756 versus US$4900; P = 0.02), the shorter average hospitalization in the LDP group (5.2 days versus 7.7 days; P = 0.01) resulted in a lower overall cost. The total cost of index hospitalization combined with readmission was significantly lower in the LDP cohort (US$11 106 versus US$14 803; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In appropriately selected patients, LDP is more cost-effective than ODP. The increased OR cost associated with LDP is offset by the shorter hospitalization. These data clarify targets for further cost reductions.

Role of Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Utility and Limitations in Light of the New World Health Organization Classification

Context.—Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (Panc-NETs) are rare and tend to get overshadowed by their more prevalent and aggressive ductal adenocarcinoma counterparts. The biological behavior of PancNETs is unpredictable, and thus management is controversial. However, the new World Health Organization classification has significantly contributed to the prognostic stratification of these patients. Concurrently, there have been advances in surgical techniques for benign or low-grade pancreatic tumors. These procedures include minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing operations such as laparoscopy and enucleation.

Objective.—To report on the utility and limitations of fine-needle aspiration in the preoperative evaluation and management of PancNETs.

Design.—This was a retrospective review of our institutional tumor database from 2002 to 2012. There were 25 cases of PancNETs that were localized and staged by medical imaging and diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration.

Results.—Fourteen patients underwent laparotomy, with some requiring only limited surgery; 4 had laparoscopic resections; 4 were serially observed without surgical intervention; and another 3 were inoperable. After a mean follow-up of 37 months, more than half of the patients had no evidence of disease, including most of those who underwent minimally invasive surgery.

Conclusions.—Fine-needle aspiration is a useful diagnostic adjunct to medical imaging in the preoperative evaluation and management of PancNETs. However, there are limitations with regard to grading PancNETs using this technique.

Minimally invasive RAMPS in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer within Yonsei criteria: long-term (>median 3 years) oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive techniques for distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy have been regarded as a feasible and safe treatment option for benign and borderline malignant lesions of the pancreas, the management of left-sided pancreatic cancer remains controversial.

METHODS

From June 2007 to November 2010, 12 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. The Yonsei criteria for patient selection included the following conditions: (1) tumor confined to the pancreas, (2) intact fascial layer between the distal pancreas and the left adrenal gland and kidney, and (3) tumor located more than 1-2 cm from the celiac axis. We compared the clinicopathologic factors and oncologic outcomes of the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and the conventional open surgery groups for treating left-sided pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

In the MIS group, the mean tumor size was 2.75 ± 1.32 cm, and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 10.5 ± 7.14. The resection margins were confirmed to be negative for malignancy in all patients. The MIS group and open group (n = 78) were statistically different in terms of tumor size (2.8 ± 1.3 vs. 3.5 ± 1.9 cm, p = 0.05) and length of hospital stay (12.3 ± 6.8 vs. 22.4 ± 21.6 days, p = 0.002). On survival analysis, the MIS group had longer disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) than the open group (DFS: 47.6 vs. 24.7 months, p = 0.027; OS: 60.0 vs. 30.7 months, p = 0.046). In order to overcome the heterogeneity of subjects between the MIS and the open group, we performed statically matched comparisons using the propensity score analysis and then divided the open group into two subgroups according to the Yonsei criteria. There were no significant differences in median overall survival between the MIS group and the open group that met the Yonsei criteria (60.00 vs. 60.72 months, p = 0.616).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive RAMPS is not only technically feasible but also oncologically safe in cases of well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. Our selection criteria for minimally invasive RAMPS needs to be further validated based on additional large-volume studies.

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malign diseases of the digestive system: Indications, limitations, and evidence

The laparoscopic technique was introduced in gastrointestinal surgery in the mid 1980s. Since then, the development of this technique has been extraordinary. Triggered by technical innovations (stapling devices or coagulation/dissecting devices), nowadays any type of gastrointestinal resection has been successfully performed laparoscopically and can be performed laparoscopically dependent on the patient’s condition. This summary gives an overview over 30 years of laparoscopic surgery with focus on today’s indications and evidence. Main indications remain the more common procedures, e.g., appendectomy, cholecystectomy, bariatric procedures or colorectal resections. For all these indications, the laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard with less perioperative morbidity. Regarding oncological outcome there have been several high-quality randomized controlled trials which demonstrated equivalency between laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Less common procedures like esophagectomy, oncological gastrectomy, liver and pancreatic resections can be performed successfully as well by an experienced surgeon. However, the evidence for these special indications is poor and a general recommendation cannot be given. In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the field of gastrointestinal surgery by reducing perioperative morbidity without disregarding surgical principles especially in oncological surgery.

Ligament of Treitz approach in laparoscopic modified radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: report of three cases

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer is being applied increasingly in selected cases. Open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to obtain a higher rate of tumor-free margins and a higher lymph node (LN) count. However, there is no standard laparoscopic technique for pancreatic cancer. We treated three patients with RAMPS using a ligament of Treitz approach. We started each procedure by dissecting the ligament of Treitz. We entered and spread the anterior space of the aorta and inferior vena cava. We then dissected the LN of the root of the supra-mesenteric artery and performed RAMPS. The mean number LN retrieved from the patients was 43 ± 22. All three patients underwent pancreatectomy to obtain tumor-free margins, and two patients began adjuvant chemotherapy by postoperative day 14. The ligament of Treitz approach in laparoscopic modified RAMPS offered tumor-free margins and the resection of sufficient regional LN. The procedure also allowed adjuvant chemotherapy to be started early.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection. From enucleation to pancreatoduodenectomy. 11-year experience

CONTEXT

Our experience with laparoscopic pancreatic resection began in 2001. During initial experience, laparoscopy was reserved for selected cases. With increasing experience more complex laparoscopic procedures such as central pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomies were performed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to review our personal experience with laparoscopic pancreatic resection over 11-year period.

METHODS

All patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatic resection from 2001 through 2012 were reviewed. Preoperative data included age, gender, and indication for surgery. Intraoperative variables included operative time, bleeding, blood transfusion. Diagnosis, tumor size, margin status were determined from final pathology reports.

RESULTS

Since 2001, 96 patients underwent laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Median age was 55 years old. 60 patients were female and 36 male. Of these, 88 (91.6%) were performed totally laparoscopic; 4 (4.2%) needed hand-assistance, 1 robotic assistance. Three patients were converted. Four patients needed blood transfusion. Operative time varied according type of operation. Mortality was nil but morbidity was high, mainly due to pancreatic fistula (28.1%). Sixty-one patients underwent distal pancreatectomy, 18 underwent pancreatic enucleation, 7 pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomies, 5 uncinate process resection, 3 central and 2 total pancreatectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas is a reality. Pancreas sparing techniques, such as enucleation, resection of uncinate process and central pancreatectomy, should be used to avoid exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency that could be detrimental to the patient's quality of life. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a safe operation but should be performed in specialized centers by highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic distal splenopancreatectomy (DSP) is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic versus laparotomic DSP in pancreatic body-tail cancer (PBTC) patients.

METHODS

Thirty-four PBTC patients were consecutively and retrospectively hospitalized for elective laparoscopic DSP (n = 11) or laparotomy (n = 23) between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was mean overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

All patients underwent DSP via laparoscopy or laparotomy as scheduled and were followed-up for 12-72 months. The two groups showed statistically similar mean operative time (laparoscopy vs. laparotomy, 150 ± 54 vs. 160 ± 48 min), median volume of intraoperative bleeding (100 [50-400] vs. 150 [50-350] ml), and rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (18.2 vs. 21.7 %). The laparoscopy group had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization (5 [3-12] vs. 8 [7-22] d, P < 0.05). All patients had a clear resection margin and showed statistically similar tumor size (2.8 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7 cm), number of lymph nodes dissected (14.8 ± 4.5 vs. 16.1 ± 5.7), and mean OS (42.0 ± 8.6 vs. 54.0 ± 5.8 mo, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DSP is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative to laparotomy in carefully selected PBTC patients and is associated with a more rapid postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: Toward the future with caution

After the rapid acceptance of laparoscopy to manage multiple benign diseases arising from gastrointestinal districts, some surgeons started to treat malignancies by the same way. However, if the limits of laparoscopy for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies. Cancerous patients represent an important group with peculiar aspects including reduced survival expectancy, worsened quality of life due to surgery itself and adjuvant therapies, and challenging psychological impact. All these issues could, potentially, receive a better management with a laparoscopic surgical approach. In order to confirm such aspects, similarly to testing the newest weapons (surgical or pharmacologic) against cancer, long-term follow-up is always recommendable to assess the real benefits in terms of overall survival, cancer-free survival and quality of life. Furthermore, it seems of crucial importance that surgeons will be correctly trained in specific oncologic principles of surgical oncology as well as in modern miniinvasive technologies. Therefore, laparoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies requires more caution and deep analysis of published evidences, as compared to those achieved for inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease or diverticular disease. This review tries to examine the evidence available to date for the use of laparoscopy and robotics in malignancies arising from the gastrointestinal district.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single center

Pancreatic surgery was reported as early as 1898. Since then significant developments have been made in the field of pancreatic resections. In addition, advances in laparoscopic surgery in general have seen the description of this approach in pancreatic surgery with increasing frequency. Although there are no randomized controlled trials, several large series and comparative studies have reported on the short and long term outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, in the last decade published systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported on cost effectiveness and outcomes of these procedures.

FIRST SINGLE-PORT LAPAROSCOPIC PANCREATECTOMY IN BRAZIL

ContextPancreatic surgery is an extremely challenging field, and the management of pancreatic diseases continues to evolve. In the past decade, minimal access surgery is moving towards minimizing the surgical trauma by reducing numbers and size of the port. In the last few years, a novel technique with a single-incision laparoscopic approach has been described for several laparoscopic procedures.ObjectivesWe present a single-port laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the first single-port pancreatic resection in Brazil and Latin America.MethodsA 33-year-old woman with neuroendocrine tumor underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy via single-port approach. A single-incision advanced access platform with gelatin cap, self-retaining sleeve and wound protector was used.ResultsOperative time was 174 minutes. Blood loss was minimal, and the patient did not receive a transfusion. The recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 4.ConclusionsSingle-port laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is feasible and can be safely performed in specialized centers by skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

Posterior approach for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to prevent replaced hepatic artery injury

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has become more popular despite its complexity and tendency for higher morbidity.1 Replaced right hepatic artery (RRHA) and replaced common hepatic artery (RCHA), both originating from the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), are the most significant and relatively common vascular anomalies in patients undergoing PD, occurring in 8.6-21 and 0.4-4.5% of cases, respectively.2,3 An inadvertent injury to theses arteries may result in an intra- or postoperative bleeding, hepatic or bile duct ischemia, and consequent leakage or delayed stricture in the bilioenteric anastomosis.2-4 Therefore, preservation of these aberrant hepatic arteries is essential unless their resection is oncologically indicated.2 We describe a posterior approach that can be advantageous in laparoscopic PD for patients with a RRHA or RCHA.

METHODS

The posterior approach was used in 81 laparoscopic PDs at the Institute Mutualiste Montsouris between 1994 and 2012.5 In brief, retropancreatic dissection is performed to complete kocherization and expose the posterolateral aspect of the SMA. The origin of the RRHA or RCHA can then be identified and dissected. After division of the pancreatic neck, the portal vein and RRHA or RCHA are separated off the pancreatic neck. In case of the RCHA, the gastroduodenal artery originating from the RCHA is divided during this dissection.

RESULTS

The video shows a secure procedure to preserve a RCHA in laparoscopic PD by early identification and dissection of the aberrant artery via the posterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The posterior approach can help to prevent inadvertent RRHA or RCHA injury in laparoscopic PD.

Augmented environments for the targeting of hepatic lesions during image-guided robotic liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic navigation technology can enhance guidance during surgery and enable the precise reproduction of planned surgical strategies. Currently, specific systems (such as the CAS-One system) are available for instrument guidance in open liver surgery. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of such a system for the targeting of hepatic tumors during robotic liver surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Optical tracking references were attached to one of the robotic instruments and to the robotic endoscopic camera. After instrument and video calibration and patient-to-image registration, a virtual model of the tracked instrument and the available three-dimensional images of the liver were displayed directly within the robotic console, superimposed onto the endoscopic video image. An additional superimposed targeting viewer allowed for the visualization of the target tumor, relative to the tip of the instrument, for an assessment of the distance between the tumor and the tool for the realization of safe resection margins.

RESULTS

Two cirrhotic patients underwent robotic navigated atypical hepatic resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. The augmented endoscopic view allowed for the definition of an accurate resection margin around the tumor. The overlay of reconstructed three-dimensional models was also used during parenchymal transection for the identification of vascular and biliary structures. Operative times were 240 min in the first case and 300 min in the second. There were no intraoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The da Vinci Surgical System provided an excellent platform for image-guided liver surgery with a stable optic and instrumentation. Robotic image guidance might improve the surgeon's orientation during the operation and increase accuracy in tumor resection. Further developments of this technological combination are needed to deal with organ deformation during surgery.

Minimalinvasive Chirurgie bei Malignomen des Gastrointestinaltrakts: Pankreas - Kontra-Position

<b><i>Hintergrund: </i></b>Für eine Vielzahl von Erkrankungen der Bauchspeicheldrüse gilt die chirurgische Resektion als die Therapie der Wahl. In den vergangenen Jahren wurden die offenen Operationsmethoden für Pankreaserkrankungen zunehmend standardisiert und können mittlerweile mit hoher Sicherheit durchgeführt werden. Unabhängig davon wird zunehmend über laparoskopische Pankreasresektionen berichtet. <b><i>Methode: </i></b>In diesem Artikel stellen wir die aktuelle Literatur zur minimalinvasiven Chirurgie der Bauchspeicheldrüse vor, um sie mit offenen Operationsverfahren zu vergleichen. Besondere Berücksichtigung finden laparoskopische und roboterassistierte Duodenopankreatektomien sowie laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen bei Patienten mit chronischer Pankreatitis sowie mit gutartigen und bösartigen Tumoren. <b><i>Ergebnisse: </i></b>Laparoskopische und roboterassistierte Pankreaskopfresektionen sollten nur in ausgewählten Fällen angewandt werden und gelten als technisch äußerst anspruchsvoll - mit einer erhöhten Inzidenz von Pankreasfisteln. Laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen sind sichere Verfahren mit einem Trend zu einer kürzeren Krankenhausaufenthaltsdauer, sollten jedoch nur für gutartige Tumoren in Betracht gezogen werden. Im Rahmen der onkologischen Chirurgie sollte die offene Pankreasresektion bevorzugt werden. Werden onkologische Eingriffe laparoskopisch durchgeführt, ist eine ausgezeichnete präoperative Diagnostik und gegebenenfalls der Einsatz eines intraoperativen laparoskopischen Ultraschalls notwendig. <b><i>Schlussfolgerungen: </i></b>Obwohl laparoskopische Pankreasresektionen in ausgewählten Fällen von Nutzen sein können, werden sie zukünftig wohl eher die Ausnahme darstellen. Eine allgemeine Umstellung auf laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen wird aufgrund des Mangels an eindeutigen Vorteilen gegenüber dem offenen Verfahren höchstwahrscheinlich nicht stattfinden.