Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and proximal body. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:937-946. [PMID: 25149632 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3756-7]

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Mapping global new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to determine the global prevalence of new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to October, 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Logit transformation was used. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis were employed to investigate determinants of the prevalence of new-onset diabetes.

RESULTS

A total of 82 studies involving 13 257 patients were included. The overall prevalence of new-onset diabetes after partial pancreatectomy was 17.1%. Univariate meta-regression indicated that study size was the cause of heterogeneity. Multivariable analysis suggested that income of country or area had the highest predictor importance (49.7%). For subgroup analysis, the prevalence of new-onset diabetes varied from 7.6% (France, 95% CI: 4.3-13.0) to 38.0% (UK, 95% CI: 28.2-48.8, P <0.01) across different countries. Patients with surgical indications for chronic pancreatitis exhibited a higher prevalence (30.7%, 95% CI: 21.8-41.3) than those with pancreatic lesions (16.4%, 95% CI: 14.3-18.7, P <0.01). The type of surgical procedure also influenced the prevalence, with distal pancreatectomy having the highest prevalence (23.7%, 95% CI: 22.2-25.3, P <0.01). Moreover, the prevalence of worsening and resolution of preoperative diabetes was 41.1 and 25.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative diabetes has a relatively high prevalence in patients undergoing partial pancreatectomy, which calls for attention and dedicated action from primary care physicians, specialists, and health policy makers alike.

Recent trends in organ-preserving pancreatectomy: Its problems and clinical advantages compared with other standard pancreatectomies

In this review article, we focus on recent papers on organ-preserving pancreatectomy procedures published since 2010. When comparing central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), most studies have concluded that the CP group exhibited significantly lower incidence of new-onset diabetes or diabetes exacerbation than the DP group postoperatively. However, because of increased incidence of morbidities such as pancreatic fistula, the surgeon faces a considerable trade-off between increased short-term morbidity and long-term preservation of endocrine function. When the outcomes of two types of spleen-preserving DP (Kimura and Warshaw procedures) are compared, most studies mentioned the low incidence of postoperative gastric varices and splenic infarction with the Kimura procedure. Although there are several reports regarding the effect of spleen preservation on prevention of postoperative infections, no report on the contribution of spleen preservation to the prevention of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection is seen. The advantages of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) concerning endocrine and exocrine functions continue to be subjects of discussion, mainly due to the limited number of institutions that have adopted this approach; however, DPPHR should be presented as an option for patients due to its low incidence of postoperative cholangitis. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy requires meticulous surgical techniques, and postoperative complications may increase with this surgery compared with standard pancreatectomy, which may be influenced by the surgeon's skill and the surgical facility where the procedure is performed. Nonetheless, this technique has significant long-term advantages in terms of endocrine and exocrine functions and its wider adoption in the future is expected.

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a surgical technique

Robotic central pancreatectomy has not been widely performed because of its rare indications, technical difficulties, and concern about the high complication rate. We reviewed six robotic central pancreatectomy cases between May 2016 and June 2021 at a single institution. This multimedia article aims to introduce our technique of robotic central pancreatectomy with perioperative and follow-up outcomes. All patients experienced biochemical leakage of postoperative pancreatic fistula, except in one with a grade B pancreatic fistula, which resulted in a pseudocyst formation and was successfully managed by endoscopic internal drainage. All patients achieved completely negative resection margins. There was no new-onset diabetes mellitus or recurrence during the median follow-up period of 13.5 months (range, 10-74 months). With an acceptable complication rate and the preservation of pancreatic function, robotic central pancreatectomy could be a good surgical option for patients with benign and borderline malignant tumors of the pancreatic neck or proximal body.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck

AIMS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP.

METHODS

In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

Predictors of postoperative complications and readmissions in laparoscopic pancreas resection: Results of a cohort 105 consecutive cases. A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas (LRP) has been implemented to a varying degree because it is technically demanding and requires a long learning curve. In the present study we analyze the risk factors for complications and hospital readmissions in a single center study of 105 consecutive LRPs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using a prospective database. Data were collected on age, gender, BMI, ASA score, type of surgery, histologic type, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, degree of severity and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

The cohort included 105 patients, 63 females and 42 males with a median age and BMI of 58 (53-70) and 25.5 (22,2-27.9) respectively. Eighteen (17%) central pancreatectomies, 5 (4.8%) enucleations, 81 (77.6%) distal pancreatectomies and one total pancreatectomy were performed. Fifty-six patients (53.3%) experienced some type of complication, of which 13 (12.3%) were severe (Clavien-Dindo > IIIb) and 11 (10.5%) patients were readmitted in the first 30 days after surgery. In the univariate analysis, age, male gender, ASA score, central pancreatectomy and operative time were significantly associated with the development of complications (P <0.05). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR 7.97; 95% CI 1.08-58.88)), severe complications (OR 59.40; 95% CI, 7.69-458.99), and the development of intrabdominal collections (OR 8.97; 95% CI, 1.28-63.02)) were associated with hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, male gender, ASA score, operative time and central pancreatectomy are associated with a higher incidence of complications. Male gender, severe complications and intraabdominal collections are associated with more hospital readmissions.

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP).

METHODS

Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM.

CONCLUSION

LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

Central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors in the neck and body of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

For tumors in the neck and body of the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy (DP) has been the standard surgical procedure for the last few decades and central pancreatectomy (CP) is an alternative surgical option. Whether CP better preserves remnant pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions after surgery remains a subject of debate.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP compared with DP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors in the neck and body of the pancreas.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 296 patients who underwent CP or DP for benign and low-malignant neoplasms at the same hospital between January 2016 and March 2020. Perioperative outcomes and long-term morbidity of endocrine/exocrine function were prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in overall morbidity or clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P = 0.055). Delayed gastric emptying occurred more frequently in the CP group than in the DP group (29.4% vs 15.3%; P < 0.005). None of the patients in the CP group had new-onset or aggravated distal metastasis, whereas 40 patients in the DP group had endocrine function deficiency after surgery (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of diarrhea immediately after surgery, but at postoperative 12 mo, a significantly higher number of patients had diarrhea in the DP group than in the CP group (0% vs 9.5%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CP is a generally safe procedure and is better than DP in preserving long-term pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions. Therefore, CP might be a better option for treating benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms in suitable patients.

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Resection of the splenic vessels during laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is safe and does not compromise preservation of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of low potential malignant diseases is increasingly frequent, and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy can be indicated in these patients. Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy that usually preserves the splenic vessels results in a low risk of new-onset diabetes but high morbidity, mainly due to postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. In this study, we evaluated the short and long-term complications after laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included 650 laparoscopic pancreatic resections from 2008 to 2020 with 84 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy; 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection; and 69 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels. Pancreaticogastrostomy was routinely performed, and the patients were discharged after complications had been treated. The 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and tumor characteristics [1:2] and compared with 30 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with the preservation of the splenic vessels.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group, resection of splenic vessels was performed due to tumoral or inflammatory adhesions (n = 11) or accidental vascular injury (n = 4). The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Tumors were larger in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group (40 vs 21 mm; P = .008), and right transection on the body of the pancreas (53% vs 13%; P = .01) was more frequent. There were no differences in the characteristics of the pancreas (Wirsung duct size or consistency). The median operative time (minutes) was longer in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group than in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels group (210 vs 180, respectively; P = .15) with more blood loss (100 mL vs 50 mL, respectively; P = .012). The lengths (mm) of the resected pancreas and remnant distal pancreas in the 2 groups were 65 vs 50 (P = .053) and 40 vs 65 (P = .006), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .47), grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (27% vs 27%; P = 1), reintervention (7% vs 13%; P = .50), grade B-C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0% vs 13%; P = .13), length of hospital stay (20 days vs 22 days; P = .15), or new-onset diabetes (7% vs 10%; P = .67) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection is a safe technical modification of central pancreatectomy that does not prevent preservation of the distal pancreas and does not influence postoperative pancreatic fistula or endocrine insufficiency. Furthermore, it could reduce the risk of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.

RESULTS

Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.

Long-term Metabolic Morbidity and Steatohepatosis Following Standard Pancreatic Resections and Parenchyma-sparing, Local Extirpations for Benign Tumor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess metabolic dysfunctions and steatohepatosis after standard and local pancreatic resections for benign and premalignant neoplasms.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Duodenopancreatectomy, hemipancreatectomy, and parenchyma-sparing, limited pancreatic resections are currently in use for nonmalignant tumors.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting measured data of metabolic functions following PD, pancreatic left resection (PLR), duodenum-sparing pancreatic head resection (DPPHR), pancreatic middle segment resection (PMSR), and tumor enucleation (TEN). Forty cohort studies comprising data of 2729 patients were eligible.

RESULTS

PD for benign tumor was associated in 46 of 327 patients (14.1%) with postoperative new onset of diabetes mellitus (pNODM) and in 109 of 243 patients (44.9%) with postoperative new onset of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency measured after a mean follow-up of 32 months. The meta-analysis displayed pNODM following PD in 32 of 204 patients (15.7%) and in 10 of 200 patients (5%) after DPPHR [P < 0.01; OR: 0.33; (95%-CI: 0.15-0.22)]. PEI was found in 77 of 174 patients following PD (44.3%) and in 7 of 104 patients (6.7%) following DPPHR (P < 0.01;OR: 0.15; 95%-CI: 0.07-0.32). pNODM following PLR was reported in 107 of 459 patients (23.3%) and following PMSR 23 of 412 patients (5.6%) (P < 0.01; OR: 0.20; 95%-CI: 0.12-0.32). Postoperative new onset of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency was found in 17% following PLR and in 8% following PMSR (P < 0.01). pNODM following PPPD and tumor enucleation was observed in 19.7% and 5.7% (P < 0.03) of patients, respectively. Following PD/PPPD, 145 of 608 patients (23.8%) developed a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after a mean follow-up of 30.4 months. Steatohepatosis following DPPHR developed in 2 of 66 (3%) significantly lower than following PPPD (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Standard pancreatic resections for benign tumor carry a considerable high risk for a new onset of diabetes, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and following PD for steatohepatosis. Parenchyma-sparing, local resections are associated with low grade metabolic dysfunctions.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: outcomes in a single high-volume institution

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors, and further compare the outcomes between different surgical techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of consecutive patients with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors underwent surgery from February 2014 to February 2019. Patients were grouped and compared according to different surgical operations they accepted.

RESULTS

Totally 164 patients were reviewed and 83 patients underwent laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPPPD), 41 patients underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and 20 patients underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) were included in this study, the rest 20 patients underwent laparoscopic enucleation were excluded. There were 53 male patients and 91 female patients. The median age of these patients was 53.0 years (IQR 39.3-63.0 years). The median BMI was 21.5 kg/m² (IQR 19.7-24.0 kg/m²). The postoperative severe complication was 4.2% and the 90-days mortality was 0. Compare with LCP group, the LPPPD and LSPDP group had longer operation time (300.4 ± 89.7 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P < 0.001) while LSPDP group had shorter operation time (174.8 ± 46.4 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P = 0.027), more blood loss [140.0 (50.0-1000.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0) ml P < 0.001 and 100.0 (20.0-300.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0 ml, P = 0.039, respectively), lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula [3 (3.6%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P < 0.001 and 3 (7.3%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P = 0.006, respectively], lower rate of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage [0 (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%), P = 0.036 and (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%) P = 0.104, respectively] and lower rate of postoperative severe complications [2 (2.4%) vs.4 (20.0%), P = 0.012 and 0 (0%) vs. 4 (20.0%), P = 0.009, respectively], higher proportion of postoperative pancreatin and insulin treatment (pancreatin: 39.8% vs., 15% P = 0.037 and 24.4%vs. 15%, P = 0.390; insulin: 0 vs. 18.1%, P = 0.040 and 0 vs. 12.2%, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, laparoscopic pancreatectomy could be safely performed for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors while the decision to perform laparoscopic central pancreatectomy should be made carefully for fit patients who can sustain a significant postoperative morbidity and could benefit from the excellent long-term results even in a high-volume center.

The clinicopathologic and operative characteristics of patients with small nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

Incidentally detected, small nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PNETs) are increasingly diagnosed on imaging modalities. This retrospective investigation evaluated the clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients with small NF-PNETs undergoing curative resection.

METHODS

The medical records of 444 patients who underwent pancreatic resection for NF-PNETs at a single, large-volume institution between January 2000 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those with small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumors based on the largest tumor diameter on preoperative computed tomography (CT). Outcomes were also evaluated in subgroups of patients with small NF-PNET who did and did not undergo lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 444 patients with NF-PNETs, 195 (43.9%) had small (≤2 cm) and 249 (56.1%) had large (>2 cm) NF-PNETs. The rate of parenchyma-preserving surgery (14.4% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.014) and the ratio of spleen preservation for left-sided pancreatectomy (65.6% vs. 38.3%, p < 0.001) were higher in the small NF-PNET group. Size on CT >2 cm (p < 0.001, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.836, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.474-13.769), presence of perineural invasion (p < 0.001, HR: 3.025, 95% CI: 1.640-5.577), World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 2 (p = 0.007, HR: 2.861, 95% CI: 1.325-6.176), and WHO Grade 3 (p < 0.001, HR: 11.537, 95% CI: 5.282-25.199) were independent predictors of disease-free survival (DFS). DFS did not differ significantly in patients with small NF-PNETs who did and did not undergo lymphadenectomy (p = 0.886).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of long-term oncologic outcomes suggests that surgical resection may cure small NF-PNETs. Minimally invasive surgery and organ-preserving surgery are acceptable treatment options for select patients with small NF-PNETs. The effect on survival outcomes of lymph node dissection for small NF-PNETs remains unclear.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Organ-Sparing Resection for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are rare neoplasms associated with a long life expectancy after resection. In this setting, patients may benefit from laparoscopic organ-sparing resection. Studies of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed for patients with PNENs who underwent laparoscopic organ-sparing pancreatectomy between March 2005 and May 2018. The patients' demographic data, operative results, pathological reports, hospital courses and morbidity, mortality, and follow-up data (until August 2018) were analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis. There were 9 male and 26 female patients, with a median age of 46 years (range 25-75 years). The mean BMI was 24.6 ± 3.3 kg/m². Nine patients received laparoscopic enucleation (LE), 20 received laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP), and 6 received laparoscopic central pancreatectomy. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative hospital stay were 186.4 ± 60.2 min, 165 ± 73.0 ml, 0 days, and 9 days (range 5-23 days), respectively. The morbidity rate, grade ≥ III complication rate, and grade ≥ B pancreatic fistula rate were 34.2%, 11.4%, and 8.7%, respectively, with no mortality. The rate of follow-up was 94.3%, and the median follow-up time was 55 months (range 3-158 months). One patient developed recurrence 36 months after LE and was managed with surgical resection. The other patients survived without metastases or recurrence during the follow-up. One patient had diabetes after LSPDP, and no patients had symptoms of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Nineteen patients who underwent LSPDP (16 with the Kimura technique and 3 with the Warshaw technique) were followed. Normal patency of the splenic artery and vein was observed in 14 and 14 patients within 1 month of surgery and in 15 and 14 patients 6 months or more after the operation, respectively. Partial splenic infarction was observed in 3 patients within 1 month of surgery and in no patients 6 months or more after the operation. Three patients eventually developed collateral venous vessels around the gastric fundus and reserved spleen, with one case of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for selected cases of PNENs is safe and feasible and has favourable short- and long-term outcomes.

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.

Risk factors for development of diabetes mellitus (Type 3c) after partial pancreatectomy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Type 3c diabetes mellitus (T3cDM) occurring post pancreatectomy can be challenging to treat due to the frequent combination of decreased circulating levels of insulin and glucagon and concurrent exocrine insufficiency. Relatively, little is known regarding the risk factors for development of T3cDM post pancreatectomy. Our aim was to review the literature and assess what is known of the risk factors for the development of new-onset DM following partial pancreatic resection and where possible determines the incidence, time of onset and the management approach to hyperglycaemia in this context.

DESIGN

Medline and Embase databases were reviewed using specific keyword criteria. Original manuscripts published in 1990 or later included. Articles with study population <20, lacking information on new-onset DM, follow-up duration or specifically targeting rare procedures/pathology were excluded. The Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment form was applied. Results reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Pooled effect size calculated using random effects model.

PATIENTS

Thirty six articles were identified that described a total of 5636 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 3922 patients having distal pancreatectomy and 315 with central pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

The incidence of new-onset DM was significantly different between different types of resection from 9% to 24% after pancreaticoduodenectomy (pooled estimate 16%; 95% CI: 14%-17%), 3%-40% after distal pancreatectomy (pooled estimate 21%; 95% CI: 16%-25%) and 0%-14% after central pancreatectomy (pooled estimate 6%; 95% CI: 3%-9%). Surgical site, higher preoperative HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose and lower remnant pancreatic volume had strongest associations with new-onset DM.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports that risk of development of T3cDM is associated with type of pancreatic resection, lower remnant pancreatic volume and higher preoperative HbA1c.

Overall Postoperative Morbidity and Pancreatic Fistula Are Relatively Higher after Central Pancreatectomy than Distal Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases from MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from 1998 to 2018. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed using statistics/data analysis (Stata®) software, version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas 77845, USA). Dichotomous variables were analyzed by estimation of relative risk (RR) with a 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables were analyzed by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

Results

Twenty-four studies with 593 CP and 1226 DP were included in the meta-analysis. CP had significantly longer operation time (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.44; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.01). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in CP (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.09; P = 0.007). Overall postoperative morbidity (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.50; P < 0.001), overall pancreatic fistula (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.66; P < 0.001), clinically relevant fistula (RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.16; P < 0.001), and postoperative hemorrhage (RR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.06; P < 0.05) were all significantly higher after CP. On long-term follow-up, DP patients were more likely to have postoperative exocrine (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.84; P < 0.05) and endocrine (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40; P < 0.001) insufficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion requirement, postoperative mortality, reoperation, and tumor recurrence.

Conclusion

CP is associated with significantly higher morbidity and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. CP should only be reserved for selected patients who require postoperative pancreatic function preservation.

Central versus Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Low-Grade Malignant Lesions in the Pancreatic Neck and Proximal Body

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP). PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Ovid's database were searched for studies published in English language between January 1990 and December 2018. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of CP versus DP. Nineteen trials with 1440 patients were analyzed. Although there were no significant differences in the rate of intra-operative blood transfusion between two groups, CP costs more operative time as well as had more intraoperative blood loss than DP. Furthermore, the overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, and the clinically significant pancreatic fistula rate were significantly higher in the CP group. On the other hand, CP had a lower risk of endocrine (odds ratio: 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.29; P < 0.05) and exocrine insufficiency (odds ratio: 0.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.48; P < 0.05). CP was associated with a higher pancreatic fistula rate, and it should be performed in selected patients who need preservation of the pancreas, which is of utmost importance.

Central pancreatectomy: a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers.

METHODS

A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal versus central pancreatectomy for tumors in the pancreatic neck and proximal body

For benign and borderline tumors in the pancreatic neck and proximal body, laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are alternative surgical procedures. Choosing between LSPDP and LCP is difficult. This retrospective cohort study was looking forward to provide evidence for clinical decision.A total of 59 patients undergoing LSPDP (Kimura procedure) and LCP between June 2013 and March 2017 were selected. The clinical outcomes of patients were compared by χ test or Fisher exact test and Student t test.This study included 36 patients in LSPDP group, and 23 patients in LCP group. The overall complications incidence in LCP group was significantly higher than LSPDP group (35 vs 6%, P = .004), and the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (grade B and C) rate and abdominal infection rate in LCP group were still significantly higher than LSPDP group (POPF 22 vs 3%, P = .019; abdominal infection 35 vs 3%, P = .001, respectively). The length of resected pancreas was significantly longer in LSPDP group (9.8 ± 2.0 vs 5.3 ± 1.1 cm, P = .007). The median follow-up was 39 months (range 12-57 months). No patient was confronted by tumor recurrence. The proportion of postoperative pancreatin and insulin treatment in LCP group were similar to LSPDP group (9 vs 17%, P = .383; 0 vs 3%, P = 1.000, respectively).For patients with poor general condition, the safety of LCP needs to be taken seriously; in some ways, LSPDP may be more secure, physiological, and easier operation for tumor located in pancreatic neck and proximal body.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

Impact of different surgical procedures on survival outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma of pancreatic neck

Background

The only curative treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is radical surgical resection. Because of the special anatomic features of pancreatic neck, the selection of optimal surgical procedure for treatment of adenocarcinoma of pancreatic neck has always been a dilemma for surgeons. In this paper, we aim to investigate whether different surgical procedures can affect prognosis in the patient with adenocarcinoma of pancreatic neck.

Methods

We used the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database to review patients with adenocarcinoma of pancreatic neck diagnosed between 1998 and 2015. We calculated overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of these patients using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model.

Results

Overall, 1443 patients were included in the study, with 12.5% treated with surgical resection. Among them, 30 (18.8%) patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP), 105 (65.6%) patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 25 (15.6%) patients underwent total pancreatectomy (TP). Patients underwent DP were older than these underwent TP (70.5±10.7 vs. 62.2±14.1, P = 0.027). Patients underwent TP had higher percentages of nodal metastasis (N1 stage) than these underwent DP (68.0% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.014). The surgical procedures did not significantly affect either OS times (P = 0.924) or CSS times (P = 0.786) in Kaplan-Meier analysis, even if in any subgroup of AJCC stage. The multivariate Cox regression model showed that types of surgery were not associated with OS and CSS. Higher tumor grade and AJCC stage are independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS. No radiotherapy was associated with a worse CSS (HR 1.610, 95% CI 1.016–2.554, P = 0.043).

Conclusion

Different surgical procedures did not affect prognosis in the patients with adenocarcinoma of pancreatic neck. TP should be performed in carefully selective patients in high-volume pancreatic centers.

Clinical efficacy of middle pancreatectomy contrasts distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution experience and review of literature

Background

We aim to analyse the difference of clinical efficacy between middle pancreatectomy (MP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

A retrospective study was used to analyse 39 cases of MP and 52 cases of DP from the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from February 2007 to December 2016. Furthermore, we identify randomized controlled trials or strictly designed clinical controlled trials on MP and DP. We performed a meta‐analysis of the final included studies using RevMan 5.3 software to illustrate the differences in efficacy between MP and DP.

Results

In the MP group, the operation time and diet start time were significantly longer than DP group. However, there was no significant difference in serious complications including clinically significant pancreatic fistula (grades B and C), delayed gastric emptying, reoperative and mortality. Furthermore, compared with DP, patients in MP group could benefit from long‐term post‐operative exocrine and endocrine function. Finally, we performed a meta‐analysis including 14 studies with a total of 1104 patients and proved that the pancreatic fistula rate, endocrine and exocrine function were significantly different in the two groups.

Conclusion

The MP is a safe and feasible surgical method. It can well preserve the endocrine and exocrine function of pancreas and improve the life quality of patients.

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.

The role of central pancreatectomy in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

A systematic literature research in PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library was performed to identify articles reporting CP from January 1983 to November 2017.

RESULTS

Fifty studies with 1305 patients undergoing CP were identified. The overall morbidity, mortality, pancreatic fistula (PF) rate and reoperation rate was 51%, 0.5%, 35% and 4% respectively. Endocrine and exocrine insufficiency were occurred in 4% and 5% of patients after CP. Meta-analysis of CP versus DP favored CP with regard to less blood loss (WMD = -143.4, P = 0.001), lower rates of endocrine (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.38, P < 0.001). CP was associated with higher morbidity and PF rate. In comparison with PD, CP had a lower risk of endocrine (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001), but a higher PF rate (OR = 1.6, P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

CP maintains pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function better than DP and PD, but is associated with a higher PF rate.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

The Largest European Single-Center Experience: 300 Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) has become routine, large single-center series are still lacking. Our aim was to analyze the results of a large European single-center series of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Between January 2008 and September 2015, 300 LPRs were performed and studied prospectively, including 165 (55%) distal pancreatectomies, 68 (23%) pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs), 30 (10%) enucleations, 35 (11%) central pancreatectomies, and 2 (1%) total pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

Mean age was 54 ± 15.4 years old (range 17 to 87 years), and most patients were women (58%). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed for malignancy (46%), low potential malignant (44%), or benign (10%) diseases. The mean operative durations were 211 ± 102 minutes (range 30 to 540 minutes) for the entire population and 351 ± 59 minutes (range 240 to 540 minutes) for PD, and decreased with the learning curve. Mean blood loss was 229 ± 269 mL (range 0 to 1,500 mL), and 13 patients (4%) received transfusions. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 12 patients (4%), and only 5 in the last 250 patients (14% vs 2%; p < 0.001). Mortality occurred in 4 (1.3%) patients and only after PD (5.8%). Common complications were pancreatic fistula (n = 124, 41%), bleeding (n = 35, 12%), and reoperation (n = 28, 9%). The postoperative outcomes were less favorable in procedures with a reconstruction phase (n = 105) than in those without (n = 195), with increased mortality (3.8% vs 0%; p = 0.04), overall morbidity (76% vs % 52%; p < 0.001), and mean hospital stay (26 ± 15 days vs 16 ± 10 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection without a reconstruction phase has excellent outcomes; LPR with a reconstruction phase, especially PD, has less favorable outcomes, and further randomized studies are required to draw conclusions on the safety and benefits of this approach.

MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY FOR PSEUDOPAPILLARY NEOPLASM OF THE PANCREAS

Background:

Solid pseudopapillary pancreatic neoplasia is usually a large well-circumscribed pancreatic mass, with cystic and solid areas more frequently found in young women. It is a benign pancreatic neoplasia in most cases, therefore minimally invasive surgery could be an interesting approach.

Aim:

Evaluate the results of minimally invasive surgery for this neoplasia.

Methods:

Patients with this tumor who underwent minimally invasive pancreatectomies between 2009 and 2015 in a single institution, were analyzed regarding demographic, clinical-pathological futures, post-operative morbidity and disease-free survival.

Results:

All were women, and their median age was 39 (18-54) years. Two patients with tumor in the head of the pancreas underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and another one underwent laparoscopic enucleation. Two patients with tumor in the neck underwent central pancreatectomy. Distal pancreatectomies were performed in the other five, one with splenic preservation. None required blood transfusion or conversion to open surgery. Two (20%) developed clinical relevant pancreatic fistulas, requiring readmission. Median length of postoperative hospital stay was five days (2-8). All resection margins were negative. Patients were followed for a median of 38 months (14-71), and there was no recurrence.

Conclusions:

Minimally invasive surgery for solid pseudopapillary pancreatic neoplasia is feasible for tumors in different locations in the pancreas. It was associated with acceptable morbidity and respected the oncologic principles for treatment.

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.

Current status of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreatectomy

This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP), and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). Some retrospective studies comparing LPD or LDP and open procedures have demonstrated the safety and feasibility as well as the intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery of these procedures. In contrast, LCP and LTP have not been widely accepted as common laparoscopic procedures owing to their complicated reconstruction and limited indications. Nevertheless, our concise review reveals that LCP and LTP performed by expert laparoscopic surgeons can result in good short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, as surgeons' experience with laparoscopic techniques continues to grow around the world, new innovations and breakthroughs in MIPS will evolve. Well-designed and suitably powered randomized controlled trials of LPD, LDP, LCP, and LTP are now warranted to demonstrate the superiority of these procedures.

Current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy

Classic pancreatectomy procedures usually require resection of the pancreas and surrounding organs, having disadvantages of major trauma, long hospital stay and high morbidity. In order to preserve organ function as much as possible, many types of organ preserving pancreatectomy have been widely used in the treatment of benign pancreatic tumors and low-grade malignant lesions, including tumor enucleation, pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, middle segmental pancreatectomy, and spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. With the development of minimally invasive techniques in recent years, laparoscopic and robotic techniques have been also safely applied in organ preserving pancreatectomy. This article will review the current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy.

Robot-Assisted Middle Pancreatectomy for Elderly Patients: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, safety, feasibility, and short- and long-term outcomes for elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies (MPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten patients (≥60 years) underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies from 2012 to 2015. The perioperative data, including tumor size, operating time, rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postoperative morbidity, and other parameters, were analyzed. We collected and analyzed the follow-up information.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64.30 years (range, 60-73 years). The average tumor size was 2.61 cm. The 10 cases were all benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The mean operating time was 175.00 min. The mean blood loss was 113.00 ml with no blood transfusion needed. Postoperative fistulas developed in 5 patients; there were 2 Grade A fistulas and 3 grade B fistulas. There were 3 patients who underwent postoperative complications, including 2 Grade 1 or 2 complications and 1 Grade 3 complication. No reoperation and postoperative mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 19.91 days. After a median follow-up of 23 months, new onset of diabetes mellitus developed in 1 patient and none suffered from deterioration of previously diagnosed diabetes or exocrine insufficiency, and no tumor recurrence happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy was safe and feasible for elderly people. It had low risk of exocrine or endocrine dysfunction and benefited patients' long-term outcomes. Incidence of POPF was relatively high but we could prevent it from resulting in bad outcomes by scientific perioperative care and systemic treatment.