Results of 100 consecutive laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: postoperative outcome, cost-benefit analysis, and quality of life assessment

Quality of life after pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is challenging owing to the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas. Increasing attention has been paid to changes in quality of life (QOL) after pancreatic surgery.

AIM

To summarize and analyze current research results on QOL after pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature available on PubMed and EMBASE was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by screening the references of retrieved articles. Studies on patients' QOL after pancreatic surgery published after January 1, 2012, were included. These included prospective and retrospective studies on patients' QOL after several types of pancreatic surgeries. The results of these primary studies were summarized inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the study, of which 13 were related to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), seven to duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR), nine to distal pancreatectomy (DP), two to central pancreatectomy (CP), and 14 to total pancreatectomy (TP). Some studies showed that 3-6 months were needed for QOL recovery after PD, whereas others showed that 6-12 months was more accurate. Although TP and PD had similar influences on QOL, patients needed longer to recover to preoperative or baseline levels after TP. The QOL was better after DPPHR than PD. However, the superiority of the QOL between patients who underwent CP and PD remains controversial. The decrease in exocrine and endocrine functions postoperatively was the main factor affecting the QOL. Minimally invasive surgery could improve patients' QOL in the early stages after PD and DP; however, the long-term effect remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

The procedure among PD, DP, CP, and TP with a superior postoperative QOL is controversial. The long-term benefits of minimally invasive versus open surgeries remain unclear. Further prospective trials are warranted.

Recovery of health-related quality of life after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Limited data comparing recovery of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are available. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of laparoscopy on postoperative HRQOL after DP using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent DP (2020-2022) enrolled in a prospective clinical trial were reviewed. Patients completed PROMIS-29 plus 2 profile preoperatively, at postoperative day (POD) 15, 30, 90, and 180. Linear regression analysis adjusting for confounders including preoperative PROMIS scores, age, gender, ASA score, diagnosis, and multivisceral resection was used to estimate mean between-group differences (MD) in postoperative PROMIS domains T scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 202 patients (118 laparoscopic, 86 open) underwent DP (median age 66 years, pancreatic cancer 41%, multivisceral resection 10%, median LOS 6 days). At POD15, LDP was associated with higher physical function (MD 5.6) and participation in social roles and activities scores (MD 3.8), reduced fatigue (MD - 2.7) and sleep disturbance (MD - 3.8) compared to ODP. At POD30, LDP patients had higher physical function (MD 5.2) and participation in social roles and activities scores (MD 6.0), reduced fatigue (MD - 3.5), and anxiety (MD - 4.0) compared to ODP. No between-group differences were found in HRQoL domains at POD90 and 180. Six months after surgery, the proportions of patients who had not recovered to preoperative physical function, participation in social roles and activities, fatigue, pain interference, sleep disturbance, cognitive function, depression, and anxiety were 31%, 31%, 28%, 20%, 15%, 14%, 8%, and 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to PROMIS, LDP resulted in improved physical and social functioning and reduced anxiety and fatigue up to 30 days after surgery compared to ODP. At 6 months after surgery, recovery of physical domains is still incomplete in up to 30% of patients.

Splenectomy and tumor size are risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

<b><br>Introduction:</b> The determinants influencing the risk for complications of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) are not yet fully defined, thus we aimed to determine risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity after LDP with spleen preservation, LDP and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas (RAMPS).</br> <b><br>Material and methods:</b> Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients that underwent LDP between January 2019 and December 2022. The study group included cases of serious perioperative morbidity (III-V grades in Clavien-Dindo classification) during a 30-day period after operation. The control group consisted of patients without serious perioperative morbidity. As many as 142 patients were included in the study.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Serious perioperative morbidity was found in 33 (23.24%) operated patients, while mortality in 3 cases (2.11%). Serious perioperative morbidity after LDP with spleen preservation was found in 9/68 (13.2%) patients (27.3% of the perioperative morbidity group). Thirteen out of 51 patients, i.e. 25.5%, after LDP with splenectomy were included in the perioperative morbidity group (39.4%). Serious perioperative morbidity after RAMPS was found in 11/23 (47.8%) patients (33.3% of the perioperative morbidity group). In multivariate logistic regression, the need for splenectomy during pancreatectomy (OR 3.66, 95%CI 1.20-11.18) and tumor above 28 millimeters in size (OR 3.01, 95%CI 1.19-9.59) were independent risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> The need for splenectomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and tumor size above 28 millimeters were independent risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.</br>.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: A propensity score analysis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy, its benefits with regard to the short-term outcomes of distal pancreatectomy remain unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a Japanese nationwide inpatient database, we identified patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 6647) and open (n = 21,843) distal pancreatectomy between July 2012 and March 2020. We conducted a 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis with adjustment for background characteristics (e.g., comorbidities, preoperative diagnosis, and hospital background) to compare in-hospital morbidity and mortality, reoperation requirement, duration of anesthesia and drainage, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. For sensitivity analyses, we performed overlap propensity score-weighted analysis, instrumental variable analysis, and subgroup analyses for hospital volume, patients with benign tumors, and those with malignant tumors that required splenectomy.

RESULTS

In-hospital morbidity and mortality were 27% and 0.7%, respectively. The 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis showed that compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with lower in-hospital morbidity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.78 [0.73 to 0.84]) and mortality (0.26 [0.14 to 0.50]), lower occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (0.78 [0.72 to 0.85]), postoperative bleeding (0.59 [0.51 to 0.69]), and reoperation (0.65 [0.58 to 0.75]), longer duration of anesthesia (difference, 59 [56 to 63] minutes), shorter duration of drainage (difference, -4.0 [-4.5 to -3.6] days) and postoperative length of stay (difference, -4.4 [-4.9 to -3.9] days), and lower total hospitalization costs (difference, -1510 [-1776 to -1243] US dollars). The sensitivity analyses showed compatible results with those from the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large nationwide cohort, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed lower in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and total hospitalization costs than open distal pancreatectomy. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may be a favorable procedure in terms of both complications and costs.

Long-Term Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive vs Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the LEOPARD Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) shortens time to functional recovery and improves 30-day quality of life (QoL), as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for nonmalignant disease. The impact of MIDP on QoL, cosmetic satisfaction, and overall major complications beyond 1-year follow-up is currently unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

The Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD) trial randomized 108 patients to MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or ODP in 14 Dutch centers (April 2015 to March 2017). The primary outcome measure of this study was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as assessed with the EQ-5D. QoL was assessed using subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, PAN-26, and a body image questionnaire. The latter included a cosmetic satisfaction score (range 3-24), and a body image score (range 5-20). Differences between MIDP and ODP for QALYs, generic, and disease-specific QoL and body image were analyzed. Missing QoL data were imputed using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

In total, 84 patients were alive, with a median follow-up of 44 months; 62 of these patients (74%) completed the questionnaires (27 MIDP, 35 ODP). There was no significant difference in QALYs between the 2 groups (mean score 2.34 vs 2.46 years, p = 0.63), nor on the QoL subscales. Significant overall change in EQ-5D health utilities were found for both groups over time (p < 0.001). Patients in the MIDP group scored higher on cosmetic satisfaction (21 vs 14, p = 0.049). No differences between the 2 groups were observed for clinical outcomes such as major complications, readmissions, and incisional hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 3 years after distal pancreatectomy, no improvement in QALYs and overall QoL was seen after MIDP, whereas cosmetic satisfaction was higher after MIDP as compared with ODP.

Quality of Life Instruments and Trajectories After Pancreatic Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

This systematic review aimed to investigate the instruments available to measure quality of life (QOL) after pancreatic cancer surgery and to describe short- and long-term QOL outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was completed using PubMed, Embase, and Medline from inception to March 2019. Studies investigating QOL outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery who were 18 years or older were included. The main outcomes of interest were QOL instruments and short (≤6 months) and long term (>6 months) QOL outcomes. The overarching domains of physical, psychosocial, overall QOL, symptoms, and other were used to summarize QOL outcomes. Thirty-five studies reporting on 3573 patients were included. Fifteen unique QOL instruments were identified, of which 4 were disease-specific instruments. Most of the included studies reported no changes in QOL at short- and long-term follow-ups for the overarching domains. No difference in QOL outcomes was reported between different surgical approaches, except laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy versus distal pancreatectomy. There are a wide range of instruments available to measure QOL outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgical patients, although only few are disease-specific. Most of the included studies reported no significant changes in QOL outcomes at short- or long-term follow-ups.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Pancreatic cancer treatment: better, but a long way to go

Remarkable progress has been made in treating pancreatic cancer over the past century, including refinement of our surgical techniques and improvements in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies. Despite these advances, the incidence of pancreatic cancer is rising globally, and it remains a deadly disease. In this review, we highlight the historical perspectives of pancreatic cancer treatment and outline the areas of future advancement that will assist progression towards better outcomes. Areas of future advancement include improving prevention strategies and early detection, refining our molecular understanding of pancreatic cancer, identifying more effective systemic therapies, and improving quality of life and surgical outcomes. Furthermore, systems need to be put in place to ensure all patients with pancreatic cancer receive high quality care and are given the appropriate options and sequence of therapy. This is best achieved through multidisciplinary care.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Predictive Factors Associated with Complications after Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Although laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become more popular, the postoperative complication rate remains high. We sought to identify the risk factors for post-LDP complications. We examined 1227 patients who underwent LDP between March 2005 and December 2015 at a single large-volume center. We used logistic regression for the analysis. The overall (13.2%) and major (3.3%) complication rates were determined. Postoperative pancreatic fistula was the most frequent complication, and 58 patients (4.7%) had clinically significant (grade B) pancreatic fistulas. No 90-day mortality was recorded. Long operative time (≥200 min), large estimated blood loss (≥320 mL), LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon (<50 cases), and concomitant splenectomy were identified as risk factors for overall complications using a logistic regression model. For major complications, male sex (p = 0.020), long operative time (p = 0.005), and LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon (p = 0.026) were significant predictive factors. Using logistic regression analysis, surgery-related factors, including long operative time and LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon, were correlated with overall and major complications of LDP. As LDP is a technically challenging procedure, surgery-related variables emerged as the main risk factors for postoperative complications. Appropriate patient selection and sufficient surgeon experience may be essential to reduce the complications of LDP.

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.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open.

METHODS

A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective comparison between minimally invasive and open approach using propensity score weighting

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNEN) are ideal entities for minimally invasive surgery. The advantage of the laparoscopic approach in terms of complications, length of stay (LOS) and cosmetic results has been previously demonstrated. However, scarce data are available on long-term oncological outcomes. Aim of this study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes, pathological findings and long-term oncological results of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for PanNEN.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ODP or MIDP for nonfunctioning PanNEN (NF-PanNEN) were retrospectively analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score was performed to compare the outcomes of MIDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Overall, 124 patients were included in the study: 84 underwent OPD, whereas 40 were submitted to MIDP. The rate of high-grade postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIDP group (p = 0.005, grade of complication with highest estimated probability 0 vs 2) and the postoperative LOS was significantly shorter after MIDP (p < 0.001, estimated days 8 versus 10). The number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) in the ODP group was significantly higher (p = 0.0036, estimated number of ELN 13 vs 10). Similar disease-free survival and overall survival were reported for the two groups (p = 0.234 and p = 0.666, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although MIDP for PanNEN seems to be associated with a lower number of ELN, long-term survival is not influenced by the type of surgical approach. MIDP is advantageous in terms of postoperative complications and LOS, but prospective studies are needed to confirm the overall oncological quality of resection in this group of neoplasms.

The Value of Decision Analytical Modeling in Surgical Research: An Example of Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate how decision modeling may identify relevant uncertainty and can preclude or identify areas of future research in surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

To optimize use of research resources, a tool is needed that assists in identifying relevant uncertainties and the added value of reducing these uncertainties.

METHODS

The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (ODP) for nonmalignant lesions was modeled in a decision tree. Cost-effectiveness based on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival was analyzed. The effect of existing uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness was addressed, as well as the expected value of eliminating uncertainties.

RESULTS

Based on 29 nonrandomized studies (3.701 patients) the model shows that LDP is more cost-effective compared with ODP. Scenarios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mortality rate of 1.79 times higher after LDP as compared with ODP, conversion in 62.2%, surgically repair of incisional hernias in 21% after LDP, or an average 2.3 days longer hospital stay after LDP than after ODP. Taking all uncertainty into account, LDP remained more cost-effective. Minimizing these uncertainties did not change the outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show how decision analytical modeling can help to identify relevant uncertainty and guide decisions for future research in surgery. Based on the current available evidence, a randomized clinical trial on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival is highly unlikely to change the conclusion that LDP is more cost-effective than ODP.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC.

METHODS

The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for PDAC between January 2013 and September 2017 were retrieved. Their postoperative outcomes and survival were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients were included. After a 2:1 matching, 93 cases in the OPD group and 55 in the LPD group were identified. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE), particularly grade B/C DGE, occurred less frequently in the LPD group than in the OPD group (1.8% vs. 36.6%, P < 0.001; 1.8% vs. 22.6%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LPD group than in the OPD group (49.1% vs. 71.0%, P = 0.008), whereas the rates of major complications were similar (10.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.590). In addition, the median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (20.0 vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

LPD was found to be technically feasible with efficacy similar to OPD for patients with PDAC.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The current evidence comparing oncological adequacy and effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is inconclusive. Recent pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of stay as the principal advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The aim of this study was to compare the three approaches to distal pancreatectomy conducting a pairwise meta-analysis and consequently network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the databases, EMBASE, Pubmed, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

RDP cohort represented only 11% of the total sample; significantly younger patients with smaller size tumours were included in the RDP and LDP cohorts compared to ODP cohort. Significantly less blood loss and shorter length of stay were the advantages of both RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The ODP cohort included significantly more specimens with positive resection margins compared to RDP and LDP cohorts.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study demonstrate that reduced blood losses and shorter length of stay are the advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. However, demographic discrepancies, underpowered RDP sample and differences in oncological burden do not permit certain conclusions regarding the oncological safety of RDP and LDP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy is a value-added proposition for patients undergoing care in moderate-volume and high-volume centers

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of the minimally invasive approach to distal pancreatectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes including readmissions to 90 days after distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (11%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and a total of 2,214 (89%) underwent open distal pancreatectomy. On multivariable regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a decreased odds risk of having any severe adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.54-0.97]), prolonged length of stay (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval [0.30-0.79]), and of being in the highest quartile for aggregate costs of care (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval [0.32-0.66]) relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a lower average 90-day aggregate cost of care than those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy when procedures were performed in high-volume (-$16,153, 95% CI: [-$23,342 to -$8,964]) centers.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy have a lower risk of severe adverse outcomes, prolonged overall length of stay, and lower associated costs of care relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. This association is independent of hospital volume.

Laparoscopic approach of the left side of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) is an increasingly used surgical technique for the treatment of benign and malignant lesions of the left side of the pancreas. The results of LLP as a treatment for primary pancreatic lesions of the head and tail of the pancreas were evaluated.

METHODS

From November 2011 to November 2017, 18 patients underwent surgery for primary lesions of the pancreas by means of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. An intra-abdominal drain tube was used in all cases, and the recommendations of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) were followed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.5years (IQR 46-74). Among the 18 left pancreatectomies performed, four were with splenic preservation, and one was a central pancreatectomy. There were two conversions. The median surgical time was 247.5minutes (IQR 242-275). The median postoperative hospital stay was 7days (IQR 6-8). After 90days, complications were detected in five patients: three gradeII, one gradeIII and one gradeV according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification. There was one gradeB pancreatic fistula, and four patients had to be readmitted to hospital because of peripancreatic collections. The anatomic pathology diagnosis was malignant neoplasm in 38.9% of cases, all of them with negative resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

LLP can be considered the technique of choice in the treatment of primary benign pancreatic lesions and an alternative to the open approach in selected patients diagnosed with malignant pancreatic lesions.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Minimally invasive pancreatic cancer surgery: What is the current evidence?

Surgery remains the only option to cure pancreatic cancer. Although the use of laparoscopy in oncology is rapidly growing worldwide, its efficacy in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. A number of studies have compared outcomes of minimally invasive and open pancreatic resections. However, they are mostly non-randomized trials including relatively small groups of patients. In addition, most of these studies were conducted in high-volume pancreatic centres. It seems that despite longer operative time, laparoscopy may be beneficial in terms of morbidity, blood loss and hospital stay. Thus far, very little is known about the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our aim was to review current evidence for the use of minimally invasive techniques in patients with pancreatic malignancy.

Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MISDP) has been shown to be safe relative to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). However, MISDP has been slow to adopt for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study sought to compare outcomes following MISDP vs. ODP for PDAC.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from 2011 to 2014 for DP by the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients without PDAC on surgical pathology were excluded. Impact of minimally invasive approach on morbidity and mortality was analyzed using two-way statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6198 patients undergoing DP, 501 (7.5%) had a pathologic diagnosis of PDAC. MISDP was undertaken in 166 (33.1%) patients, ODP was performed in 335 (66.9%). MISDP and ODP were not different in preoperative comorbidities or pathologic stage. Overall morbidity (MISDP 31%, ODP 42%; p = 0.024), transfusion (MISDP 6%, ODP 23%; p = 0.0001), pneumonia (MISDP 1%, ODP 7%; p = 0.004), surgical site infections (MISDP 8%, OPD 17%; p = 0.013), sepsis (MISDP 2%, ODP 8%; p = 0.007), and length of stay (MISDP 5.0 days, ODP 7.0 days; p = 0.009) were lower in the MIS group. Mortality (MISDP 0%, ODP 1%; p = 0.307), pancreatic fistula (MISDP 12%, ODP 19%; p = 0.073), and delayed gastric emptying (MISDP 3%, ODP 7%; p = 0.140) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of a large multi-institution North American experience of DP for treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma suggests that short-term postoperative outcomes are improved with MISDP.

Enhanced recovery pathway in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) pathways have improved outcomes across multiple surgical specialties, but reports concerning their application in distal pancreatectomy (DP) are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess compliance with an ER protocol and its impact on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing DP.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were reviewed. One hundred consecutive patients undergoing DP were treated within an ER pathway comprising 18 care elements. Each patient was matched 1:1 with a patient treated with usual perioperative care. Match criteria were age, BMI, ASA score, lesion site, and type of disease.

RESULTS

Adherence to ER items ranged from 15% for intraoperative restrictive fluids to 100% for intraoperative warming, antibiotic and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Patients in ER group experienced earlier recovery of gastrointestinal function (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001), oral intake (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001), and suspension of intravenous infusions (3 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Overall morbidity was similar in the two groups (72% vs. 78%). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was reduced in ER patients without postoperative complications (6.7 ± 1.2 vs. 7.6 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

An ER pathway for DP yielded an earlier postoperative recovery and shortened LOS in uneventful patients. Postoperative morbidity and readmissions were similar in both groups.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections: cost and value perspectives

BACKGROUND

The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications.

METHODS

An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR.

RESULTS

Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level.

CONCLUSION

Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

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.

Development of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: an Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas has only recently emerged as viable treatment options for benign and malignant disease. This review seeks to evaluate the current body of evidence on these approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of large published series was performed utilizing the PubMed search engine.

RESULTS

Based on these reports, both the laparoscopic and robotic techniques for these complex procedures appear to be safe and effective, if performed by high volume experienced pancreatic surgeons. The advantages of each approach are highlighted, emphasizing the data available on the learning curve and potential dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

Both minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection are safe and feasible.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

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

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

Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open?

BACKGROUND

The latest studies on surgical and cost-analysis outcomes after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) highlight mixed and insufficient results. Whereas several investigators have compared surgical outcomes of LDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for adenocarcinomas, few similar studies have focused on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of PNET patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between 2004 and 2014. Patients were divided into LDP vs. ODP groups. Demographics, relevant comorbidities, oncologic variables, and cost-analysis data were assessed. Survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 171 distal pancreatectomies for PNETs, 73 were laparoscopic, whereas 98 were open. Patients undergoing LDP demonstrated significantly lower rates of postoperative complications (P=0.028) and had significantly shorter hospital stays (P=0.008). On multivariable analysis, positive resection margins (P=0.046), G3 grade (P=0.036), advanced WHO classification (P=0.016), TNM stage (P=0.018), and readmission (P=0.019) were significantly associated with poor survival; however, method of resection (LDP vs. ODP) was not (P=0.254). The median total direct costs of LDP vs. ODP did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to the recent considerable controversy surrounding the costs and surgical outcomes of LDP vs. ODP, our results show that LDP for PNETs is cost-neutral and significantly reduces postoperative morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes and survival.

Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open?

BACKGROUND

The latest studies on surgical and cost-analysis outcomes after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) highlight mixed and insufficient results. Whereas several investigators have compared surgical outcomes of LDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for adenocarcinomas, few similar studies have focused on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of PNET patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between 2004 and 2014. Patients were divided into LDP vs. ODP groups. Demographics, relevant comorbidities, oncologic variables, and cost-analysis data were assessed. Survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 171 distal pancreatectomies for PNETs, 73 were laparoscopic, whereas 98 were open. Patients undergoing LDP demonstrated significantly lower rates of postoperative complications (P=0.028) and had significantly shorter hospital stays (P=0.008). On multivariable analysis, positive resection margins (P=0.046), G3 grade (P=0.036), advanced WHO classification (P=0.016), TNM stage (P=0.018), and readmission (P=0.019) were significantly associated with poor survival; however, method of resection (LDP vs. ODP) was not (P=0.254). The median total direct costs of LDP vs. ODP did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to the recent considerable controversy surrounding the costs and surgical outcomes of LDP vs. ODP, our results show that LDP for PNETs is cost-neutral and significantly reduces postoperative morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes and survival.