Laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398:939-945. [PMID: 24006117 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-013-1108-z]

Feasibility analysis of treating breast cancer patients with breast-conserving surgery via a periareolar incision combined with non-lipolytic suspension-type mastoscopy

The purpose is to analyze and compare postoperative recovery and complication incidence between a periareolar incision combined with Suspension-type Mastoscopic Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (SMALND) and traditional inflated Mastoscopic Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (MALND). This was a randomized trial conducted from June 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022, in the Department of Second Breast Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, and the Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, Zibo Central Hospital, in accordance with the criteria of inclusion and exclusion. Overall, 126 patients diagnosed and treated for early-stage breast cancer were selected to undergo periareolar-incision breast-conserving surgery. Those patients who underwent periareolar-incision surgery combined with SMALND formed the observation group (SMALND Group), while those who underwent periareolar-incision surgery combined with traditional inflation became MALND Group. In the two groups, paired data "t" was used to examine, analyze, and compare the postoperative daily drainage volume and drain removal time, while paired data "χ²" was used to examine, analyze, and compare the incidences of postoperative upper limb edema and paresthesia. There were 64 cases in the SMALND Group and 62 cases in the MALND Group. Between the two clusters, no differences were found in age, clinical staging, BMI, and breast cancer classification (P > 0.05). The intraoperative surgery time of the SMALND Group was 43.37 ± 6.27 min while that of the MALND Group was longer: 45.72 ± 4.25 min (P < 0.05). The intraoperative hemorrhage volume of the SMALND Group was 88.33 ± 16.79 ml, less than that of the MALND Group: 96.76 ± 26.85 ml (P < 0.05). The postoperative axillary mean daily drainage volume of the SMALND Group was 38.17 ± 5.55 ml, less than that of the MALND Group: 40.72 ± 7.25 ml (P < 0.05). The drain removal time of the SMALND Group was 7.50 ± 1.60, less than that of the MALND Group: 9.00 ± 1.80 (P < 0.05). The upper limb edema incidence rate of the SMALND Group was 3.12% (2/64) and had no obvious difference from the MALND Group, which was 4.83% (3/62) (P = 0.62). The paresthesia incidence rate of the SMALND Group was 18.75% (12/64), while that of the MALND Group was 17.7% (11/62), without an obvious difference (P = 0.88). For axillary lymph node dissection, the use of non-lipolytic suspension-type mastoscopy has reduced the intraoperative hemorrhage volume of patients, shortened surgery time and postoperative recovery time, saved treatment expenses for patients, and avoided complications such as hypercapnia and subcutaneous emphysema caused by traditional inflated mastoscopic surgery. Moreover, it has not increased the incidence of postoperative upper limb edema and paresthesia, supporting its safety and effectiveness.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Laparoscopic versus open approach to neurolytic celiac plexus block in inoperable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) is an effective method of palliative pain control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the laparoscopic NCPB versus open approach.

METHODS

Eight patients (Group A) underwent diagnostic laparoscopy which revealed an inoperable pancreatic cancer. Forty millilitres of solution (20 mL of 95% ethanol mixed with 20 mL of xylocaine) was injected into either side of para-aortic soft tissue. The same solution was injected in 10 patients (Group B), with inoperable pancreatic body cancer diagnosed during laparotomy.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative or post-operative, NCPB related, complications. Patients in both groups, reported significant pain relief in the early post-operative period. Using the visual analogue scale preoperatively, in second post-operative day, first and third post-operative month, no significant different was observed between the two groups. The mean hospital stay in both groups was 2.1 versus 5.2 (P = 0.0005) and the mean survival 8.1 versus 7.9 months (ns).

CONCLUSIONS

The NCPB is feasible method for palliation in inoperable pancreatic cancer. Laparoscopic NCPB gives excellent results and could still be considered in selected cases, as an effective alternative during staging laparoscopy.

Operative technique in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC): 17 steps standardized technique : Lessons learned since the first worldwide RPD performed in the year 2001

Background

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) was introduced in the attempt to improve the outcomes of the open approach. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) was first reported by Gagner and Pomp (Surg Endosc 8:408–410, 1994). Unfortunately, due to its complexity and technical demand, LPD never reached widespread popularity. Since it was first performed by P. C. Giulianotti in 2001, Robotic PD (RPD) has been gaining ground among surgeons. MIPD is included as a surgical option in the latest NCCN Guidelines. However, lack of surgical standardization, however, has limited the reproducibility of MIPD and made the acquisition of the technique by other surgeons difficult. We provide an accurate description of our standardized step-by-step RDP technique.

Methods

We took advantage of our 15-year long experience and > 150 cases performed to provide a step-by-step guidance of our RPD standardized technique. The description includes practical “tips and tricks” to facilitate the learning curve and assist with the teaching/evaluation process.

Results

17 surgical steps were identified as key components of the RPD procedure. The steps reflect the subdivision of the RPD into several parts which help to understand a strategy that takes into accounts specific anatomical landmarks and the demands of the robotic platform.

Conclusions

Standardization is a key element of the learning curve of RPD. It can potentially provide consistent, reproducible results that can be more easily evaluated. Despite promising results, full acceptance of RPD as the ‘gold standard’ is still work in progress. Randomized-controlled trials with the application of a standardized technique are necessary to better define the role of RPD.

Perioperative and Long-term Oncological Results of Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy as Hybrid Technique - A Matched Pair Analysis of 120 Cases

Background Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a highly challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to analyse post-operative morbidity and mortality as well as long term overall survival in patients undergoing hybrid LPD, as compared to open pancreaticoduodenecomy (OPD) in a single surgeon series.

Methods Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in the period from 2000 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. All LPD procedures were performed by one specialised pancreatic surgeon (TK). Patients were matched 1 : 1 for age, sex, BMI, ASA, histological diagnosis, pancreatic texture and portal venous resection (PVR). All LPD procedures were performed as hybrid LPD – combining laparoscopic resection and open reconstruction via mini laparotomy.

Results A total of 549 patients were identified, including 489 patients in the OPD group and 60 patients in the LPD group. 60 patients were identified who underwent LPD between 2010 and 2015 versus 60 OPD patients operated in the same period. Median overall operation time was shorter in the LPD group than with OPD patients (LPD 352 vs. OPD 397 min; p = 0.002). Overall transfusion units were lower in the LPD group (LPD range 0 – 4 vs. OPD range 0 – 11; p = 0.032). Intensive care unit stay (LPD 1 vs. OPD 6 d; p = 0.008) and overall hospital stay (OHS: LPD 14 vs. OPD 18 d; p = 0.012) were shorter in the LPD groups than in the OPD group. As regards postoperative complications, LPD was associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD 15 vs. OPD 36%; p = 0.036) and grade B/C delayed gastric emptying (LPD 8 vs. OPD 20%; p = 0.049). A total of 56 patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. The number of harvested lymph nodes and R0-resection rates were equal for LPD and OPD patients. LPD patients showed a trend to improved median overall survival (LPD mean 56 months vs. OPD mean 48 months; p = 0.056).

Conclusion Hybrid LPD is a safe procedure associated with a reduction in clinically relevant postoperative complications and allows faster recovery. Long term oncological outcome of hybrid LPD for malignant disease is equal to that with the standard open approach.

[Laparoscopic pancreatic resection]

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Despite being technically challenging, laparoscopic surgical procedures are increasingly being used also in pancreatic surgery. This review attempts to evaluate these procedures based on the currently available literature against the background of the high mortality of pancreatic surgery observed nationwide and the as yet unclear oncological validation of these procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Recently published retrospective cohort and register trials have evaluated not only perioperative outcome but also long-term survival after laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions are increasingly being used for treatment of malignant tumors of the pancreas. The advantages of laparoscopy, such as less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative pain and a shorter duration of hospital stay, have all been demonstrated in retrospective trials. Equivalent long-term survival after oncological laparoscopic pancreatic surgery compared to open procedures was also observed in these trials; however, mortality even after laparoscopic pancreatic surgery was found to be significantly increased in low-volume centers. Prospective trials are still needed to prove adequate oncological treatment. Laparoskopische Verfahren haben sich in den letzten Jahren in fast allen Bereichen der Chirurgie quasi zum Standard entwickelt und werden von Patienten zunehmend nachgefragt. Die kosmetischen Ergebnisse sind deutlich besser als bei konventionellem Vorgehen und sie reduzieren unter anderem den postoperativen Schmerz, Schmerzmittelbedarf sowie den Krankenhausaufenthalt [29]. Daher ist es wenig überraschend, dass minimal-invasive Verfahren auch bei technisch hochkomplexen Eingriffen, wie z. B. am Pankreas, zunehmend eingesetzt werden. Allerdings wird ihr Einsatz hier noch immer kontrovers diskutiert.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing distal pancreatic resection were extracted from the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. After propensity score case matching, groups of LDP and ODP were compared regarding demography, comorbidities, operative details, histopathology, and perioperative outcome.

RESULTS

At the time of data extraction, the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry included over 3000 pancreatic resections from over 50 surgical departments in Germany. Data from 353 patients undergoing ODP (n = 254) or LDP (n = 99) from September 2013 to February 2016 at 29 institutions were included in the analysis. Baseline data showed a strong selection bias in LDP patients, which disappeared after 1:1 propensity score matching. A comparison of the matched groups disclosed a significantly longer operation time, higher rate of spleen preservation, more grade A pancreatic fistula, shorter hospital stay, and increased readmissions for LDP. In the small group of patients operated for pancreatic cancer, a lower lymph node yield with a lower lymph node ratio was apparent in LDP.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP needed more time but potential advantages include increased spleen preservation and shorter hospital stay, as well as a trend for less transfusion, ventilation, and mortality. LDP for pancreatic cancer was performed rarely and will need critical evaluation in the future. Data from a prospective randomized registry trial is needed to confirm these results.

A prospective clinical study evaluating the development of bowel wall edema during laparoscopic and open visceral surgery

BACKGROUND

To examine bowel wall edema development in laparoscopic and open major visceral surgery.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 47 consecutively operated patients with gastric and pancreatic resections were included. Twenty-seven patients were operated in a conventional open procedure (open group) and 20 in a laparoscopic fashion (lap group). In all procedures, a small jejunal segment was resected during standard preparation, of which we measured the dry-wet ratio. Furthermore, HE staining was performed for measuring of bowel wall thickness and edema assessment.

RESULTS

Mean value (±std) of dry-wet ratio was significantly lower in the open than in the lap group (0.169 ± 0.017 versus 0.179 ± 0.015; p = 0.03) with the same amount of fluid administration in both groups and a longer infusion interval during laparoscopic surgery. Subgroup analyses (only pancreatic resections) still showed similar results. Histologic examination depicted a significantly larger bowel wall thickness in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery does not seem to lead to the bowel wall edema observed to occur in open surgery regardless of the degree of intravenous fluid administration, thus supporting its use even in major visceral surgery.

Laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors with special contribution of radionuclide imaging

The surgical treatment of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) draws on experience and guidelines more than on prospective randomized trials. The incidence of NET is increasing in all parts of the gastrointestinal tract. A variety of classifications introduced over the last decade may have led to difficulties in judging clinical relevance and determining the right surgical strategy. The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society and the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society have developed usable guidelines from the available literature. For more than 20 years laparoscopy has developed as the gold standard for various surgical indications. Nevertheless, few trials have compared open and laparoscopic surgery with regard to NET. This review summarizes the recent literature on surgery for NET and incorporates the evidence on laparoscopy for cancer which might be also applied for NET.

A comparative study of laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery has many advantages, its application in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has not been sufficiently studied. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma.

STUDY DESIGN

Among 167 consecutive patients between December 2006 and August 2013, 150 patients were included. Unmatched and propensity score-matched analyses were performed to compare the primary (oncologic adequacy) and secondary outcomes (hospital course and complications) between ODP and LDP groups.

RESULTS

In unmatched patients, LDP was associated with an earlier return to diet and a shorter hospital stay compared with ODP. The 5-year survival rates were 27.6% in unmatched ODP (n = 80) and 32.5% in unmatched LDP (n = 70). Fifty-one patients from each group were selected by propensity score matching. In this matched patient comparison, LDP was again associated significantly with a shorter median postoperative time to restarting diet and a shorter hospital stay. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of primary outcomes of operative time, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin status, and secondary outcomes of frequency of pancreatic fistula and complications. The 2 groups also had comparable patient survival (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This large single-center study of laparoscopic surgery for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma indicated that LDP was safe and more efficacious than OPD after propensity score adjustment for presurgical variables of return to diet and length of stay.

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.

Clinical presentation and comparison of surgical outcome for segmental resection vs. Whipple's procedure for solid pseudopapillary tumor: Report of six new cases & literature review of 321 cases

AIM

Report 6 new cases of solid-pseudopapillary-pancreatic-tumor, comprehensively review 321 cases reported in American literature, and compare outcomes for segmental resection vs.. Whipple's procedure.

METHODS

Cases of solid-pseudopapillary-tumor at William Beaumont Hospital, 1999-2011, identified by computerized analysis of pathology reports. Comprehensive review of all American cases identified by computerized literature review. Segmental resection includes open/laparoscopic central pancreatectomy and anatomic distal pancreatectomy, but excludes enucleation.

RESULTS

Six cases of solid-pseudopapillary-pancreatic-tumors (0.5% of all solid pancreatic lesions), occurred during 1999-2011 at the hospital. Mean age at diagnosis = 27.7 years. All 6 were female. All patients had abdominal pain. Mean symptom duration = 10.0 days. All patients had normal routine blood tests. Mean APACHE II score at diagnosis = 1.8. All six patients had single heterogeneous lesions, with cystic/solid components. All patients underwent surgery: segmental resection-4, Whipple's procedure-2. Tumors were uniformly diagnosed by surgically resected tissue. Mean tumor size = 5.7 cm. Mean postoperative length of stay = 4.0 days for segmental resection (N = 4) vs. 14.0 days for Whipple's procedure (N = 2). All 6 patients are alive and well to-date, without evident local recurrence or metastasis. In a literature review, 45 patients undergoing Whipple's procedure versus 34 patients undergoing segmental resection, had significantly longer mean postoperative hospitalization (16.4 vs. 4.3 days, p = 0.01), and had increased unadjusted mortality (20.2% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.018). However, this mortality difference became insignificant when adjusting for longer mean follow-up of Whipple's procedure patients (Kaplan-Meier-survival-curve, p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

This work suggests segmental resection of these pancreatic tumors localized to the body/tail may have a better surgical outcome than Whipple's procedure for tumors localized to the pancreatic head. Further studies are necessary.