Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

An evidence-based model for predicting conversion to open surgery in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP.

METHODS

A total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves.

RESULTS

Following an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Yields Superior Outcomes Compared to Laparoscopic Technique: A Single Surgeon Experience of 123 Consecutive Cases

Technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), in comparison to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), may translate to high conversion rates and morbidity. LDP and RDP procedures performed between December 2008 and January 2023 in our tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centres were analysed and compared with regard to short-term outcomes. A total of 62 consecutive LDP cases and 61 RDP cases were performed. There was more conversion to open surgeries in the laparoscopic group compared with the robotic group (21.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). The LDP group also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (43.5% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major complication or pancreatic fistular after operations (p = 0.20 and p = 0.71, respectively). For planned spleen-preserving operations, the RDP group had a shorter mean operative time (147 min vs. 194 min, p = 0.015) and a reduced total length of hospital stay compared with the LDP group (4 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.0002). The failure rate for spleen preservation was 0% in RDP and 20% (n = 5/25) in the LDP group (p = 0.009). RDP offered a better method for splenic preservation with Kimura's technique compared with LDP to avoid the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices related to ligation and division of splenic pedicles. RDP should be the standard operation for the resection of pancreatic tumours at the body and tail of the pancreas without involving the celiac axis or common hepatic artery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias.

RESULTS

Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.

Assessment of difficulty in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A modification of the Japanese difficulty scoring system - A single-center high-volume experience

Background

The Japanese difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The study aimed to validate a modified DSS (mDSS) in a European high‐volume center.

Methods

Patients' clinical data underwent LDP for benign and malignant pancreatic lesion between September 2013 and February 2020 were reviewed. Expert laparoscopic surgeons performed the procedures. The mDSS consisted of seven variables, such as type of operation, malignancy, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic resection line, tumor close to major vessels, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension and/or splenomegaly. According to the difficulty level and previous score, the mDSS was subdivided into three classes: low, intermediate, and high. Surrogates of case complexity (operative time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements, conversion rate) were used to validate the new scoring system.

Results

The study population included 140 LDP. Ninety‐five (68%), 35 (25%) and 10 (7%) patients belonged to low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups. The mDSS identified the complexity of the surgical case of the series for all the surrogates of complexity considered, namely conversion rate (P = .004), operative time (P = .033) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .009). No differences were recorded in the postoperative outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusion

The mDSS for LDP better stratified the pancreatic procedures according to their complexity. The new scoring system may allow an appropriate preoperative evaluation of surgical difficulty, facilitating LDP's training program. Future prospective studies are needed to validate the mDSS.