Laparoscopic approach to distal and subtotal pancreatectomy: a clockwise technique

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days.

INTERPRETATION

A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

FUNDING

Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation

OBJECTIVE

To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively.

BACKGROUND

POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet.

METHODS

Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Preliminary experience with a new robotic technique to facilitate distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation: left lateral approach in right lateral decubitus position

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SP-DP), for patients with benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the body or tail of the pancreas, is the ideal procedure although it is technically demanding. The robotic da Vinci system has been introduced to overcome these technical challenges and reduce operative risks. We report our experience of a new variation in surgical technique: the left lateral approach robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP-DP) in right lateral decubitus position. We performed this new variant of SP-DP, in five patients, using the da Vinci Xi system. Technical and clinical feasibility are described. The mean age and body mass index were 53.4 years and 31.4 kg/m², respectively. The mean total operative time was 323 min. The estimated mean blood loss was 240 ml. In all patients, the spleen could be preserved. In four patients, the splenic vessels were also preserved. One patient required a Warshaw technique due to significant fibrosis attached to the splenic vein. The postoperative period of all patients was uneventful except the presence of biochemical leak (BL) in two patients that only required maintenance of the drainage at home. The mean length of hospital stay was 6 days after surgery. The left lateral approach robotic SP-DP in right lateral decubitus position is a feasible and safe procedure for distal benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the left pancreas. The right lateral decubitus position associated to robotic surgery can facilitate this complex procedure, especially when splenic vessels preservation is indicated, with a lower risk of conversion and shortening of the learning curve.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.

METHODS/DESIGN

Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

HOW TO PERFORM LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY USING THE CLOCKWISE TECHNIQUE

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy is currently a widely used approach for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

International Expert Consensus on Precision Anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: PAM-HBP Surgery Project

BACKGROUND

Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).

METHODS

Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

Surgical approaches for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was initially performed for benign tumors, but recently its indications have steadily broadened to encompass other conditions including pancreatic malignancies. Thorough anatomical knowledge is mandatory for precise surgery in the era of minimally invasive surgery. However, expert consensus regarding anatomical landmarks to facilitate the safe performance of MIDP is still lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using keywords to identify articles regarding the vascular anatomy and surgical approaches/techniques for MIDP.

RESULTS

All of the systematic reviews revealed that MIDP was not associated with an increase in postoperative complications. Moreover, most showed that MIDP resulted in less blood loss than open surgery. Regarding surgical approaches for MIDP, a standardized stepwise procedure improved surgical outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, and major complications. There are two approaches to the splenic vessels, superior and inferior; however, no study has ever directly compared them with respect to clinical outcomes. The morphology of the splenic artery affects the difficulty of approaching the artery's root. To select an appropriate dissecting layer when performing posterior resection, thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the fascia, left renal vein/artery, and left adrenal gland is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

In MIDP, a standardized approach and precise knowledge of anatomy facilitates safe surgery and has the advantage of a shorter learning curve. Anatomical features and landmarks are particularly important in cases of radical MIDP and splenic vessel preserving MIDP.

Precision vascular anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasingly performed worldwide; however, the surgical anatomy required to safely perform MIDP has not yet been fully considered. This review evaluated the literature concerning peripancreatic vascular anatomy, which is considered important to conduct safe MIDP.

METHODS

A database search of PubMed and Ichushi (Japanese) was conducted. Qualified studies investigating the anatomical variations of peripancreatic vessels related to MIDP were evaluated using SIGN methodology.

RESULTS

Of 701 articles yielded by our search strategy, 76 articles were assessed in this systematic review. The important vascular anatomy required to recognize MIDP included the pancreatic parenchymal coverage on the root and the running course of the splenic artery, branching patterns of the splenic artery, confluence positions of the left gastric vein and the inferior mesenteric vein, forms of pancreatic veins including the centro-inferior pancreatic vein, characteristics of the left renal vein, and collateral routes perfusing the spleen following Warshaw's technique. Very few articles evaluating the relationship between the anatomical variations and surgical outcomes of MIDP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The precise knowledge of peripancreatic vessels is important to adequately complete MIDP. More detailed anatomic analyses and descriptions will benefit surgeons and their patients who are facing these operations.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive (MIS) left pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly used to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite improved short-term outcomes, no studies have demonstrated long-term benefits over open resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried between 2010 and 2016 for patients with PDAC, grouped by surgical approach (MIS vs open). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical staging, and pathologic staging were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative, short-term oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, both cohorts included 805 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, staging, or preoperative therapy between cohorts. The MIS cohort had a shorter length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 vs 8.5 ± 7.3 days; P < .0001) with the trend toward improved time to chemotherapy (53.9 ± 26.1 vs 57.9 ± 29.9 days; P = .0511) and margin-positive resection rate (15.3% vs 18.9%; P = .0605). Lymph node retrieval and receipt of chemotherapy were similar. The MIS cohort had higher median overall survival (28.0 vs 22.1 months; P = .0067). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest survival for robotic compared with laparoscopic and open LP (41.9 vs 26.6 vs 22.1 months; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety of MIS LP and favorable long-term oncologic outcomes. The improved survival after MIS LP warrants further study with prospective, randomized trials.

Distal pancreatectomy outcomes: Perspectives from a community-based teaching institution

Backgrounds/Aims

Distal pancreatic resections are intricate operations with potential for significant morbidity; there is controversy surrounding the appropriate setting regarding surgeon/hospital volume. We report our distal pancreatectomy experience from a community-based teaching hospital.

Methods

This study includes all patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions between June 2004 and October 2017. Both groups were compared for perioperative characteristics, parenchymal resection technique, and outcomes.

Results

138 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy during this time. The distribution of LDP and ODP was 68 and 70 respectively. Operative time (146 vs. 174 min), blood loss (139 vs. 395 ml) and mean length of stay (4.8 vs. 8.0 days) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The 30-day Clavien Grade 2/3 morbidity rate was 13.7% (19/138) and the incidence of Grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 6.5% (9/138), with no difference between ODP and LDP. 30-day mortality was 0.7% (1/138). 61/138 resections had a malignancy on final pathology. ODP mean tumor diameter was greater (6.4 cm vs. 2.9 cm), but there was no significant difference in the mean number of harvested nodes (8.6 vs. 7.4). The cost of hospitalization, including readmissions and surgery was significantly lower for LDP ($7558 vs. $11610).

Conclusions

This series of distal pancreatectomies indicates a shorter hospital stay, less operative blood loss and reduced cost in the LDP group, and comparable morbidity and oncologic outcomes between LDP and ODP. It highlights the feasibility and safety of these complex surgeries in a community setting.

Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial

Background

Studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss and recovery. Only one randomized study is available, which showed enhanced functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP.

Methods

Consecutive patients evaluated at a multidisciplinary tumour board and planned for standard distal pancreatectomy were randomized prospectively to LDP or ODP in an unblinded, parallel-group, single-centre superiority trial. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital stay.

Results

Of 105 screened patients, 60 were randomized and 58 (24 women, 41 per cent) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; there were 29 patients of mean age 68 years in the LDP group and 29 of mean age 63 years in the ODP group. The main indication was cystic pancreatic lesions, followed by neuroendocrine tumours. The median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (i.q.r. 4–5) days in the laparoscopic group versus 6 (5–7) days in the open group (P = 0·002). Functional recovery was attained after a median of 4 (i.q.r. 2–6) versus 6 (4–7) days respectively (P = 0·007), and duration of surgery was 120 min in both groups (P = 0·482). Blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery: median 50 (i.q.r. 25–150) ml versus 100 (100–300) ml in the open group (P = 0·018). No difference was found in the complication rates (Clavien–Dindo grade III or above: 4 versus 8 patients respectively). The rate of delayed gastric emptying and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

LDP is associated with shorter hospital stay than ODP, with shorter time to functional recovery and less bleeding. Registration number: ISRCTN26912858 (www.isrctn.com).

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (LAPOP): study protocol for a single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Earlier nonrandomized studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss, and recovery. Only one randomized study has been conducted showing reduced time to functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP.

METHODS

LAPOP is a prospective randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group, single-center superiority trial. Sixty patients with lesions in the pancreatic body or tail that are found by a multidisciplinary tumor board to need surgical resection will be randomized to receive LDP or ODP. The primary outcome variable is postoperative hospital stay, and secondary outcomes include functional recovery (defined as no need for intravenous medications or fluids and as the ability of an ambulatory patient to perform activities of daily life), perioperative bleeding, complications, need for pain medication, and quality of life comparison.

DISCUSSION

The LAPOP trial will test the hypothesis that LDP reduces postoperative hospital stay compared with ODP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, 26912858 . Registered on 28 September 2015.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: Our Experience in a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Despite an increase in the number of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) procedures being performed, the long-term oncology and operative results are still unclear. The aim of this study was to present the surgical and long-term results of patients undergoing LDP for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was made of patients who underwent LDP in our clinic, between 2006 and 2018, and who were diagnosed with pancreas tail, neck, and corpus tumors. For the purposes of this study, the data related to the preoperative, operative, and postoperative characteristics of the patients were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were identified as suitable for inclusion in the study. Of these, 52.1% were female individuals, and the average age of the whole group was 63 years. Previous surgery for malignant diseases was recorded for 54.3% of the patients, due to premalignant diseases in 13% and benign diseases in 32.7%. On average, 10 lymph nodes were removed from patients diagnosed with malignant tumors. The conversion rate was found to be 2.1%. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate was 26%, and there was 1 complication each of grades III and IV according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The mortality rate was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that LDP of distal pancreas tumors seems to be both safe and effective in respect of the long-term results in addition to the early results of the operation.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

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

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".

Laparoscopic distal resection of the pancreas. Can be all resections of body and tail of the pancreas called the same?

Introduction

Distal resection of the pancreas is a routine procedure in high-volume centres. However, the volume of this procedure can vary. This variation plays a very important role in laparoscopic approach of pancreatic surgery and can be a real challenge if the anatomical situation is underestimated.

Aim of the study

To present our experience in minimally invasive treatment of the pancreatic tumours and to discuss different approaches to different anatomical situations.

Material and methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients, who underwent laparoscopic pancreas resection for pancreatic cancer in our hospital since 2014 to 2016 February. According to extension of operation, patients were divided into two groups: distal pancreatectomy and left hemipancreatectomy for cases that required preparation of the portal vein. Demographic characteristics, and operative and postoperative data were compared between both groups.

Results

Out of 16 patients, distal pancreatectomy was performed for 7 (43.8%) and left hemipancreatectomy for 9 (56.2%) patients. For 1 (14.3%) laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and for 2 (22.2%) laparoscopic left hemipancreatectomy patients surgical conversion to laparotomy was performed. The average operation time was 205 (195–245) min for distal pancreatectomy and 412.5 (280–520) min for left hemipancreatectomy group (p = 0.001), blood loss 125 (20–250) ml and 250 (50–1800) ml accordingly (p = 0.138). Totally postoperative fistula occurred in 7 (43.8%) cases; out of them, 5 (71.4%) patients were from the left hemipancreatectomy group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic left hemipancreatectomy is more complicated than distal pancreatectomy. Extension and technique selection of distal resection of the pancreas depends on the Yonsei criteria and tumour relation to the portal vein.

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.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs.

DISCUSSION

The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Its application for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2014, 72 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC at a single institution and were included in the study. Postoperative and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing LDP (n = 44) or ODP (n = 28) were compared.

RESULTS

LDP was associated with less blood loss (332 vs. 874 mL, p = 0.0012) and lower transfusion rates than ODP (18.2 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0495). Operative time was similar (254 vs. 266 min) for LDP and ODP; five patients (11.4 %) required conversion to ODP. Pancreatic fistulas (13.6 vs. 7.1 %) and major complications (13.6 vs. 25 %), were similar between LDP and ODP, respectively. Length of hospital stay (5.1 vs. 9.4 days, p = 0.0001) and time to initiate adjuvant therapy (69.4 vs. 95.6 days, p = 0.0441) was shorter for LDP than ODP. Tumor characteristics were similar but LDP was associated with more resected lymph nodes than ODP (25.9 vs. 12.7, p = 0.0001). One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were similar between LDP (69, 41, and 41 %, respectively) and ODP (78, 44, and 32 %, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LDP is associated with less blood loss and need for blood transfusion, shorter hospital stay, and faster time to initiate adjuvant therapy than ODP for patients with PDAC. Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival are similar between the two groups. LDP appears to be safe in the treatment of patients with PDAC.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Review of the English Literature

BACKGROUND

Recently, the superiority of the minimally invasive approach, which results in a better cosmetic result, faster recovery, and shorter length of hospital stay, is a technique that has been progressively recognized as it has developed. And the minimally invasive approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy (DP), which is a standard method for the treatment of benign, borderline, and part of malignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. This article aims to analyze the types, postoperative recovery, and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, online journals, and the Internet for all publications on LDP. Articles were selected if the abstract contained patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic diseases. All selected articles were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

If there were no contraindications for LDP, this operation is suitable for benign, borderline, or malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail, which should try to be performed with preservation of the spleen. LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions to experienced surgeon. Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (S-LDP) and robotic laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (R-LDP) perioperative outcomes are similar with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (C-LDP). And the advantages of S-LDP and R-LDP require further exploration. With the application of enhanced recovery program (ERP), length of hospital stay and costs are reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions. Compared with open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has a lot of advantages; a trend was observed for LDP to replace traditional open surgery. LDP combined with ERP is expected to become standard in the treatment of pancreatic body and tail lesions.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

After technological advances and increased experiences, more complicated surgeries including distal pancreatectomy can be easily performed with acceptable oncologic results, and decreased mortality and morbidity. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have several advantages including less blood loss, less hospital stay, less pain. Several studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and LDP resulted that both techniques have similar results according to pancreas fistulas, oncological results, costs and operation indications. Morbidity is very low in high volume centers, for this reason at least ten cases should be performed for the learning curve. Several authors remarked important technical points in LDP in order to perform safe and acceptable LDP in several studies. Here in this review, we aimed to overview the results of previous studies about LDP and discuss the technical points of LDP.

Effectiveness and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on patients at high anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is the most acceptable procedure in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, knowledge regarding patients at a high anesthetic risk during lengthy and technically demanding LDP is controversial. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of LDP in patients with high anesthetic risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective collection retrospective review of patients underwent LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) from January 2011 until December 2013. By the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, patients were divided into low- and high-risk patients. We compared the clinical, perioperative, and postoperative results in these patients.

RESULTS

The cohort included 77 patients: 20 underwent LDP, and 57 underwent ODP. There were 30 patients in the low-risk group and 47 patients in the high-risk group. In high-risk patients, LDP, compared with ODP, presented a shorter operating time (mean, 220.8±101.1 minutes versus 299.4±124.3 minutes; P=.038), less blood loss (409.3±569.9 mL versus 1083.1±1583.0 mL; P=.039), higher rate of spleen preservation (73.3% versus 43.8%, P=.037), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) (9.5±3.0 days versus 15.7±9.4 days; P=.044).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, LDP provides early recovery and better cosmetic appearance. In high anesthetic risk patients, LDP shows less operative time, less perioperative blood loss, a higher rate of spleen preservation, slighter complication, and shorter LOS, which might explain why LDP is a feasible and effective procedure.

Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease: Review of the Literature

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.

The Posterior Approach for Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Valid Choice for Resection of Complex Lesions of the Distal Pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is replacing open surgery as the technique of choice for benign and premalignant lesions of the left pancreas. In most laparoscopic series, the supine decubitus or semilateral position is preferred. A posterior approach with the patient in full right lateral decubitus (PA-FRLD) has been proposed as an alternative.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From July 2012 to November 2014 we performed 14 LDPs. PA-FRLD was chosen in 8 patients; in 6 patients splenectomy was also performed.

RESULTS

Definitive diagnoses were 3 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 2 cases of nonfunctioning neuroendocrine tumors, 1 case of bulky serous cystic neoplasm, 1 case of inflammatory chronic pancreatitis, and 1 case of pancreatic trauma (duct disruption). No conversions were required. No postoperative pancreatic fistula was detected. No patient required transfusion. Two patients had Clavien II and IIIb postoperative complications. In both cases in which preservation of the splenic vessels was attempted, it was successfully achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

The PA-FRLD position is a valid alternative to the supine or semilateral position for LDP. This approach is especially beneficial for resection of complex and bulky lesions of the tail of the pancreas and those in close contact with retroperitoneal organs and can also facilitate spleen-preserving LDP.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Since the first report on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appeared in the 1990s, the procedure has been performed increasingly frequently to treat both benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Many earlier publications have shown LDP to be a good alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for benign lesions, although this has never been studied in a prospective, randomized manner. The evidence for the use of LDP to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is not as well established. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current evidence for LDP in cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We conducted a review of English language publications reporting LDP results between 1990 and 2013. All studies reporting results in patients with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. Thirty-nine publications were found and included in the results for a total of 309 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (potential double publications were not eliminated). Most LDP procedures are performed in selected cases and generally involve smaller tumors than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) procedures. Some of the papers report unselected cases and include procedures on larger tumors. The number of lymph nodes harvested using LDP is comparable to the number obtained with ODP, as is the frequency of R0 resections. Current data suggest that similar short term oncological results can be obtained using LDP as those obtained using ODP.

Combined laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation for benign pancreatic neoplasm

AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) with autologous islet transplantation (AIT) for benign tumors of the pancreatic body-neck.

METHODS: Three non-diabetic, female patients (age 37, 44 and 35 years, respectively) were declared candidates for surgery, between May and September 2011, because of pancreatic body/neck cystic lesions. The planned operation was an LSPDP associated with AIT from the normal pancreas distal to the neoplasm. Islets isolation was performed on the residual pancreatic parenchyma after frozen section examination of the margin. Purified autologous islets were infused into the portal vein by a percutaneous transhepatic approach the day after surgery.

RESULTS: The procedure was performed successfully in all the three cases, and the spleen was preserved along with its vessels. Mean operation time was 283 ± 52 min and average blood loss was 133 ± 57 mL. Residual pancreas weights were 33, 22 and 30 g, and 105.200, 40.390 and 94.790 islet equivalents were isolated, respectively. Surgical complications occurred in one patient (grade A pancreatic fistula). Postoperative stays were 6, 6 and 7 d, respectively. Histopathological evaluation revealed mucinous cystic neoplasm in cases 1 and 3, and serous cystic neoplasm in patient 2. No postoperative insulin administration was required. One patient developed a transient partial portal thrombosis 2 mo after islet infusion. Patients are insulin independent at a mean follow up of 8 ± 2 mo.

CONCLUSION: Combination of LSPDP and AIT is feasible and could be effective to minimize the surgical impact for benign neoplasm of pancreatic body-neck.

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.

Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's transition over a 7-year period

OBJECTIVES

Many studies have shown laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to have benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This institution made a unique abrupt transition from an exclusively open approach to a preference for the laparoscopic technique. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing LDP and ODP, respectively, over the period of transition.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing LDP (n = 82) or ODP (n = 90) was performed. Surrogate oncologic markers for the subgroup of patients with malignant disease were also studied.

RESULTS

The ODP and LDP groups were well matched with regard to demographics, comorbidities and tumour characteristics. Significant differences were noted in favour of the LDP group in which decreases were seen in estimated blood loss (<0.001), need for packed red blood cell transfusions (<0.001), length of hospital stay (<0.001) and intensive care unit stay (<0.001). No other significant differences in the occurrence of complications or oncologic outcomes were seen. Rates of Grade B and C fistulae were 10% and 6% in the ODP and LDP groups, respectively. Grade III-V complications occurred in 20% and 13% of the ODP and LDP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy continues to compare favourably with ODP when well-matched patient series are reviewed. The results show a decreased need for blood transfusions and hospital resources in LDP. Additionally, there may be oncologic advantages associated with LDP compared with ODP in pancreatic malignancies.

[Results of the laparoscopic approach in left-sided pancreatectomy]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) is an accepted technique for the treatment of benign and pre-malignant lesions of the left side of the pancreas, but there is still controversy on its use for malignant ones.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our results in LLP as a routine technique for primary lesions of the left pancreas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed LLP in 15 patients for primary lesions of the pancreas from November 2007 to November 2011. An intra-abdominal drainage was left in all cases, and the recommendations of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula were followed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64±13 years. Six radical spleno-pancreatectomies, 3 corporo-caudal with preservation of the spleen, and 6 pure distal (4 with preservation of the spleen). There was one conversion. The mean surgical time was 230±69 minutes. The mean post-operative stay was 8.1±7.6 days. At 90 days, complications were detected in 4 patients; 3 grade II and one grade V according to the modified classification of Clavien. There was one grade B pancreatic fistula. The diagnosis was a malignant neoplasm in 53% of cases. The number of resected lymph nodes in the cases where a radical resection was planned due to cancer was 21.7±11.5, there being negative margins in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LLP may be considered as a suitable technique for the treatment of primary pancreatic lesions, including malignant ones, provided that it is performed by groups with experience in pancreatic surgery and highly trained in laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.

National trends in resection of the distal pancreas

AIM

To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy (DP) through query of three national patient care databases.

METHODS

From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 2003-2009), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP, 2005-2010), and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER, 2003-2009) databases using appropriate diagnostic and procedural codes we identified all patients with a diagnosis of a benign or malignant lesion of the body and/or tail of the pancreas that had undergone a partial or distal pancreatectomy. Utilization of laparoscopy was defined in NIS by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision correspondent procedure code; and in NSQIP by the exploratory laparoscopy or unlisted procedure current procedural terminology codes. In SEER, patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition diagnosis codes and the SEER Program Code Manual, third edition procedure codes. We analyzed the databases with respect to trends of inpatient outcome metrics, oncologic outcomes, and hospital volumes in patients with lesions of the neck and body of the pancreas that underwent operative resection.

RESULTS

NIS, NSQIP and SEER identified 4242, 2681 and 11,082 DP resections, respectively. Overall, laparoscopy was utilized in 15% (NIS) and 27% (NSQIP). No significant increase was seen over the course of the study. Resection was performed for malignancy in 59% (NIS) and 66% (NSQIP). Neither patient Body mass index nor comorbidities were associated with operative approach (P = 0.95 and P = 0.96, respectively). Mortality (3% vs 2%, P = 0.05) and reoperation (4% vs 4%, P = 1.0) was not different between laparoscopy and open groups. Overall complications (10% vs 15%, P < 0.001), hospital costs [44,741 dollars, interquartile range (IQR) 28 347-74 114 dollars vs 49 792 dollars, IQR 13 299-73 463, P = 0.02] and hospital length of stay (7 d, IQR 4-11 d vs 7 d, IQR 6-10, P < 0.001) were less when laparoscopy was utilized. One and two year survival after resection for malignancy were unchanged over the course of the study (ductal adenocarinoma 1-year 63.6% and 2-year 35.1%, P = 0.53; intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and nueroendocrine 1-year 90% and 2-year 84%, P = 0.25). The majority of resections were performed in teaching hospitals (77% NIS and 85% NSQIP), but minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was not more likely to be used in teaching hospitals (15% vs 14%, P = 0.26). Hospitals in the top decile for volume were more likely to be teaching hospitals than lower volume deciles (88% vs 43%, P < 0.001), but were no more likely to utilize MIS at resection. Complication rate in teaching and the top decile hospitals was not significantly decreased when compared to non-teaching (15% vs 14%, P = 0.72) and lower volume hospitals (14% vs 15%, P = 0.99). No difference was seen in the median number of lymph nodes and lymph node ratio in N1 disease when compared by year (P = 0.17 and P = 0.96, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There appears to be an overall underutilization of laparoscopy for DP. Centralization does not appear to be occurring. Survival and lymph node harvest have not changed.