Improved oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive left pancreatectomy: Propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: cranial-to-caudal approach with identification of Gerota's fascia (with video)

BACKGROUND

Although radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has become the gold standard procedure in open distal pancreatectomy, there has been no gold standardized procedure for PDAC in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). In this study, we analyzed our novel cranial-to-caudal approach (CC approach) for patients undergoing MIDP and provide a video clip illustrating the details of the CC approach.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients who underwent MIDP with splenectomy between 2016 and 2021 were included in this study. The CC approach was performed in 23 (24.5%) of the 94 patients. The concept of the CC approach is easy identification of Gerota's fascia from the cranial side of the pancreas and secure tumor removal (R0 resection) wrapped by Gerota's fascia. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the CC and non-CC approaches.

RESULTS

The median operation time and blood loss were similar between the two groups. The ratios of grade ≥ B postoperative pancreatic fistula and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications were also comparable. All patients in the CC approach group achieved R0 resection, and the R0 ratio was similar in the two groups (p = 0.345). The 2-year survival rate in CC and non-CC approach groups was 87.5% and 83.6%, respectively (p = 0.903).

CONCLUSIONS

The details of the CC approach for MIDP were demonstrated based on an anatomical point of view. This approach has the potential to become a standardized approach for left-sided PDAC.

Blood loss in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be underestimated

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has an advantage in reducing blood loss over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This study was performed to investigate whether blood loss is truly reduced in LDP.

METHODS

A total of 113 patients undergoing DP from 2014 to 2022 were classified into Open and LDP groups and compared by statistical analysis. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was calculated from the perioperative changes in the hematocrit, hemoglobin, or red blood cell volume, and actual blood loss (ABL) was taken from the operative record.

RESULTS

ABL was significantly lower in the LDP than ODP group (50[5-1350] vs 335 [5-1950] ml, P < .01). However, there were no significant differences in EBL calculated from the hematocrit (406 [66-1990] vs 540 [23-1490] ml, P = .14), hemoglobin, or red blood cell volume. EBL showed more linear correlations with ABL in the ODP group (r = 0.64-0.73) than in the LDP group (r = 0.52-0.57). In the multivariate analysis for ABL, ODP (P = .02) and operative time (P < .01) were significant factors. In contrast, no significant factors were found for EBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative blood loss may be underestimated in LDP, and a new evaluation method needs to be established.

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery in the elderly patient: experiences from a high-volume centre

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery (RPS) has fundamentally developed over the past few years. For subgroups, e.g. elderly patients, applicability and safety of RPS still needs to be defined. Given prognosticated demographic developments, we aim to assess the role of RPS based on preoperative, operative and postoperative parameters.

METHODS

We included 129 patients undergoing RPS at our institution between 2017 and 2020. Eleven patients required conversion to open surgery and were excluded from further analysis. We divided patients into two groups; ≥ 70 years old (Group 1; n = 32) and < 70 years old (Group 2; n = 86) at time of resection.

RESULTS

Most preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups. However, number of patients with previous abdominal surgery was significantly higher in patients ≥ 70 years old (78% vs 37%, p < 0.0001). Operative characteristics did not significantly differ between both groups. Although patients ≥ 70 years old stayed significantly longer at ICU (1.8 vs 0.9 days; p = 0.037), length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity were equivalent between the groups.

CONCLUSION

RPS is safe and feasible in elderly patients and shows non-inferiority when compared with younger patients. However, prospectively collected data is needed to define the role of RPS in elderly patients accurately. Trial registration Clinical Trial Register: Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS; German Clinical Trials Register). Clinical Registration Number: DRKS00017229 (retrospectively registered, Date of Registration: 2019/07/19, Date of First Enrollment: 2017/10/18).

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.