Perioperative and long-term results after left pancreatectomy: a single-institution, non-randomized, comparative study between open and laparoscopic approach

Impact of pancreas transection site on incidence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is performed for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. The morbidity profile is considerable, mainly due to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). This study aims to investigate potential differences in CR-POPF related to transection site.

METHODS

An observational cohort study from a prospectively maintained database was performed. Subtotal distal pancreatectomy (SDP) was defined as transection over the superior mesenteric vein, and DP was defined as transection lateral to this point. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 fashion was applied based on demographical and perioperative variables.

RESULTS

Six hundred and six patients were included in the analysis (1997-2020). Four hundred twenty (69.3%) underwent DP, while 186 (30.7%) underwent SDP. The rate of CR-POPF was 19.3% after DP and 20.4% after SDP (p = 0.74). SDP was associated with older age (63.1 vs 60.1 years, p = 0.016), higher occurrence of ductal adenocarcinoma (37.1 vs 17.6%, p = 0.001) and more frequent use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3.8 vs 0.7%, p = 0.012). After PSM, 155 patients were left in each group. The difference in CR-POPF between DP and SDP remained statistically non-significant (20.6 vs 18.7%, p = 0.67).

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in CR-POPF related to transection site during distal pancreatectomy.

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.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial)

Background

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost‐effectiveness and impact on disease‐specific quality of life have yet to be established.

Methods

The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot‐assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease‐specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality‐adjusted life‐year.

Results

All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot‐assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias‐corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost‐effective than the open approach at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality‐adjusted life‐year at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease‐specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot‐assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost‐effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality‐adjusted life‐years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Pancreatic stump closure using only stapler is associated with high postoperative fistula rate after minimal invasive surgery

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of the present study is to determine the risk factors that can lead to POPF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted between January 2008 and December 2012. A total of 96 patients who underwent DP were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 patients (25%) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 72 patients (75%) open surgery. The overall morbidity rate was 51% (49/96). POPF (32/96, 33.3%) was the most common postoperative complication. Grade B fistula (18/32, 56.2%) was the most common fistula type according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition. POPF rate was significantly higher in the minimally invasive surgery group (50%, p=0.046). POPF rate was 58.6% (17/29) in patients whose pancreatic stump closure was performed with only stapler, whereas POPF rate was 3.6% (1/28) in the group where the stump was closed with stapler plus oversewing sutures. Both minimally invasive surgery (OR: 0.286, 95% CI: 0.106-0.776, p=0.014) and intraoperative blood transfusion (OR: 4.210, 95% CI: 1.155-15.354, p=0.029) were detected as independent risk factors for POPF in multi-variety analysis.

CONCLUSION

LDP is associated with a higher risk of POPF when stump closure is performed with only staplers. Intraoperative blood transfusion is another risk factor for POPF. On the other hand, oversewing sutures to the stapler line reduces the risk of POPF.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections in two medium-sized medical centres

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

Reproducibility of preoperative endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula

Background

A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and potentially life-threatening surgical complication in pancreatic surgery. One possible pharmacological treatment could be the endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin (BTX) into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent POPF. Promising data reported a significantly reduced rate of clinically relevant POPF. We analyzed the effect of BTX injection in our patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing DP was performed. Patients with preoperative endoscopic injection of BTX into the sphincter of Oddi were included. The end points were postoperative outcomes including POPF. BTX patients were compared with a historical cohort and matched in a 1:1 ratio using a propensity score analysis.

Results

A total of 19 patients were treated with endoscopic injection of BTX before open (n=8) or laparoscopic (n=11) DP. The median age of the patients was 67 years and the mean body mass index was 25.9 kg/m². In median, the intervention was performed 1 day (range, 0–14 days) before the operation. There were no intervention-related complications. The incidence of POPF was not statistically different between the two groups: a clinically relevant POPF grade (B/C) occurred in 32% (BTX) and 42% (control; p=0.737). Likewise, there were no significant differences in postoperative drain fluid amylase levels, morbidity, and mortality.

Conclusion

The present study could not reproduce the published results of a significant lowering of grade B/C POPF. The explanations could be the timing of BTX injection before surgery and the endoscopic technique of BTX injection. However, the conflicting results after BTX injection in two high-volume centers prompt a randomized controlled multicenter trial with trained endoscopists.

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 cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

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

Stump closure reinforcement with absorbable fibrin collagen sealant sponge (TachoSil) does not prevent pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: the FIABLE multicenter controlled randomized study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of TachoSil sponge on distal pancreatectomy remnant stump in reducing the rate and severity of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

All consecutive patients requiring distal pancreatectomy were randomized in 45 centers. The principal end point was onset of "clinically relevant" POPF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were searched for predictive factors.

RESULTS

Of the 270 patients randomized (134 with TachoSil; 136 without), 150 (55.6%) patients sustained a POPF [74 clinically relevant and 76 clinically silent (27.4% and 28.1%), respectively]: no statistically significant difference was found between patients sustaining clinically relevant POPF [41 (30.6%) with vs 33 (24.3%) without TachoSil (P = .276)], or overall POPF [73 (54.5%) with vs 77 (56.6%) without TachoSil, (P = .807)], but there were more clinically relevant POPF after hand-sewn (32.3%) versus mechanical closure (19.8%) (P = .025) and, in case of splenic preservation, after splenic vessel ligation (15/32, 46.9%) versus vascular preservation (17/72, 23.6%) (P = .024). Hand-sewn pancreatic remnant closure (P = .023) and splenic vessel ligation in splenic preservation (P = .035) were independent predictive factors for the onset of clinically relevant POPF.

CONCLUSION

TachoSil sponge reinforcement of the proximal remnant after distal pancreatectomy reduced neither the rate nor the severity of POPF.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it's time to randomize

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

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

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and proximal body

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) is a parenchyma-sparing minimally invasive surgical technique for removal of benign or low-grade malignant lesions from the neck and proximal body of the pancreas. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of LCP with those of other pancreatectomies.

METHODS

During the study period, January 2007 to December 2010 (median follow-up 40.6 months), 287 pancreatectomies were performed for lesions in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas. To compare the clinical outcomes of LCP and other pancreatectomies, 26 cases of LCP, 14 cases of open central pancreatectomy (OCP), and 96 cases of extended laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (E-LDP) were selected.

RESULTS

Tumor sizes in the LCP (2.2 cm) and OCP (2.9 cm) groups were smaller than in the E-LDP (4.0 cm) group. Mean operation time in the LCP group (350.2 min) was longer than in the OCP (270.3 min) and E-LDP groups (210.6 min). There were more surgical complications in the LCP (38.5 %) and OCP groups (50 %) than in the E-LDP group (14.6 %). Mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 13.8 days for the LCP group, which was significantly shorter than for the OCP group (22.4 days). New-onset diabetes was less frequent after LCP than after E-LDP (11.5 vs. 30.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with small and benign tumors in the pancreatic neck and proximal body LCP leads to increased postoperative morbidity but earlier postoperative recovery than OCP, and excellent postoperative pancreatic function (compared with E-LDP). LCP should, therefore, be considered a valid therapeutic option for selected patients.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

This study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared with the open method using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated by meta-analysis using a fixed effect model and random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies of LDP and three studies of LPD matched the selection criteria, including 2,904 patients of DP and 109 patients of PD. Compared with ODP, LDP showed statistically significant differences with respect to less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, lower wound infection rates, lower morbidity rates, and shorter hospital stays. LPD showed significantly longer operative times compared with OPD. There was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between laparoscopic pancreatectomy and the open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis included the largest number of patients and number of articles comparing LDP and ODP, and LDP showed significantly better perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis suggests that LDP is a reasonable operative method for benign tumors and some ductal carcinomas in the pancreas.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases -- a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for management of hepatic colorectal metastases (HCRM) is commonly being performed; however, there are limited reports comparing LH outcomes with those of open hepatectomy (OH) procedure. The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative outcomes between the LH and OH procedures performed at a single medical center.

Methods

From Jan 2008 to May 2012, 30 patients with pathologically confirmed HCRM underwent LH, and 140 patients underwent OH at our hospital. Patients' demographics, perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

2 patients (6.7%) in the LH group underwent laparotomies for intraoperative hemorrhage. The LH group had an increased surgical duration (235 min vs. 365 min, (P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and fewer complications (26.2% vs. 55%, P<0.001) than the OH group. However, in a matched cohort comparison of 30 LH cases and 30 OH cases, no significant variations were observed in the following parameters: surgical duration (235 min vs. 255 min, P = 0.23), positive margin rates (6.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.27), or postoperative hematological changes. LH patients had less estimated blood loss (215 ml vs. 385 ml, P<0.001), less morbidity (26.2% vs. 50%, P = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and lower analgesic requests than with those in the OH group.

Conclusions

LH for metastatic colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible treatment, even in patients who underwent prior laparotomy surgeries and provides significantly less morbidity and shorter hospital stay than OH, without compromising curability or increasing morbidity.

Efficacy of an absorbable fibrin sealant patch (TachoSil) after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of an absorbable fibrin sealant patch (TachoSil) in reducing postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP).

BACKGROUND

POPF remains the main complication after DP.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open, randomized, study in which patients undergoing elective DP were randomized to standard surgical suturing or stapling with or without TachoSil. The primary end point was the incidence of POPF according to International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula criteria. Amylase level in drainage fluid, number of days until removal of drain, and duration of hospital stay were secondary end points.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients were enrolled at 19 centers over a 2-year period (TachoSil, n = 145; standard, n = 130). Twenty percent of procedures were laparoscopic and 21% were spleen-preserving resections. The incidence of POPF was not significantly different between groups (TachoSil, 62%; standard 68%; P = 0.267). Grade A fistula rate was similar in both groups (TachoSil 54%; standard 55%), whereas the grade B + C fistula rate was 8% with TachoSil versus 14% without (P = 0.139). Amylase drainage level on postoperative day 1 was significantly reduced with TachoSil (P = 0.025). Median number of days until drainage removal and length of hospital stay were similar in both groups (7 and 10 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The POPF rate was higher than expected when International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula criteria were strictly applied, although the majority were biochemical fistulas. TachoSil had no significant effect on the rate of POPF, although there was a significant reduction of amylase level in drainage fluid on postoperative day 1.

Surgical treatment of sporadic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a state of the art review

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are rare neoplasms. They are clinically diverse and divided into functioning and nonfunctioning disease, depending on their ability to produce symptoms due to hormone production. Surgical resection is the only curative treatment and remains the cornerstone therapy for this patient group, even in patients with advanced disease. Over the last decade there has been a noticeable trend towards more aggressive surgery as well as more minimally invasive surgery in patients with PNETs. This has resulted in improved long-term survival in patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease treated aggressively, as well as shorter hospital stays and comparable long-term outcomes in patients with limited disease treated minimally invasively. There are still controversies related to issues of surgical treatment of PNETs, such as to what extent enucleation, lymph node sampling, and vascular reconstruction are beneficial for the oncologic outcome. Histopathologic tumor classification is of high clinical importance for treatment planning and prognostic evaluation of patients with PNETs. A constant challenge, which relates to the treatment of PNETs, is the lack of an internationally accepted histopathological classification system. This paper reviews current issues on the surgical treatment of sporadic PNETs with specific focus on surgical approaches and tumor classification.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

The laparoscopic approach for benign and malignant lesions in the tail of the pancreas is becoming a more widely used approach. Multiple prospective studies have shown the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in single-center and multi-center settings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a challenging procedure, because the pancreas is surrounded by critical structures and located in the retroperitoneum. Pancreatic fistula remains a common complication in the laparoscopic approach. Distal pancreatic aggressive tumors may not be appropriate for the laparoscopic approach due to the lack of oncologic safety studies.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed.

RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid intake, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I² = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I² = 55.6%].

CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP.

Surgical treatment of pancreatic tumors in childhood and adolescence: uncommon neoplasms with favorable outcome

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents are uncommon. The aim of the present paper was to analyze short- and long-term outcomes after surgical treatment of primary pancreatic neoplasms in children and adolescents at a single high-volume center for pancreatic diseases.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical records and pathology reports of patients younger than 18 years who underwent surgery at Verona University Hospital from 1990 through 2010.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 20 patients. Abdominal pain and palpable mass were the most common presenting symptoms. No patient had a locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic disease. Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 19 patients. There was no postoperative mortality, but postoperative complications occurred in 5 cases (25%). Histological examination showed 12 solid pseudopapillary tumors, 5 neuroendocrine tumors, 2 cystadenomas and 1 epithelial malignant tumor. At a median follow-up of 49.5 months (range: 7-234), there was no tumor recurrence. Postoperative diabetes was diagnosed in 1 patient and 4 other patients developed pancreatic exocrine insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of a high-volume surgical center, radical resection of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents is associated with acceptable postoperative morbidity and favorable long-term outcome.