Binding pancreaticogastrostomy in laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: a novel technique in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:715-720. [PMID: 26123326 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4265-z]

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resections for solid pseudopapillary tumors located in the head of pancreas

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of the pancreas is a rare low-grade malignant tumor. Here, we aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomy for SPT located in the pancreatic head.

METHODS

From July 2014 to February 2022, 62 patients with SPT located in the pancreatic head were operated laparoscopically in two institutions. These patients were divided into two groups according to the operative strategy: laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomy (27 patients, group 1) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (35 patients, group 2). The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed in terms of demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and long-term follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

The demographic characteristics of the patients in the two groups were comparable. Compared to the patients in group 2, those in group 1 required less operative time (263.4 ± 37.2 min vs. 332.7 ± 55.6 min, p < 0.001) and experienced less blood loss (105.1 ± 36.5mL vs. 188.3 ± 150.7 mL, p < 0.001). None of the patients in group 1 had tumor recurrence or metastasis. However, 1 (2.5%) patient in group 2 showed liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomy is a safe and feasible approach for SPT located in the pancreatic head, with favorable long-term functional and oncological results.

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.

Modified binding pancreaticogastrostomy vs modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumors

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoenteric anastomosis is one of the technically challenging steps of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), especially during the learning curve. Despite multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, the type of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis as a risk factor for post-pancreatectomy complications is debatable. Also, the ideal technique of pancreatic reconstruction during the learning curve of laparoscopic PD has not been well studied.

AIM

To compare the short-term outcomes of modified binding pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) during learning curve of laparoscopic PD.

METHODS

The first 25 patients with resectable pancreatic or periampullary tumors who underwent laparoscopic PD with modified binding PG or modified Blumgart PJ between January 2015 and May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed to compare perioperative outcomes during the same learning curve. A single layer of the full-thickness purse-string suture was placed around the posterior gastrotomy in the modified binding PG. In the modified Blumgart technique, only a single transpancreatic horizontal mattress suture was placed on either side of the pancreatic duct (total two sutures) to secure the pancreatic parenchyma to the jejunum. Also, on the ventral surface, the knot is tied on the jejunal wall without going through the pancreatic parenchyma. Post pancreatectomy complications are graded as per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery criteria.

RESULTS

During the study period, modified binding PG was performed in 27 patients and modified Blumgart PJ in 29 patients. The demographic and clinical parameters of the first 25 patients included in both groups were comparable. Lower end cholangiocarcinoma and ampullary adenocarcinoma were the primary indications for laparoscopic PD in both groups (32/50, 64%). The median operative time for pancreatic reconstruction was significantly lower in the binding PG group (42 vs 58 min, P = 0.01). The clinically relevant (Grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was significantly more in the modified PJ group (28% vs 4%, P = 0.04). In contrast, intraluminal postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was more in the binding PG group (32% vs 4%, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed gastric emptying between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

During the learning curve of laparoscopic PD, modified binding PG reduces POPF but is associated with increased intraluminal PPH compared to PJ using the modified Blumgart technique.

Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Systematic Review and Optimal Management Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence and diagnosis of EPI after pancreatectomy has not been fully understood and optimized. The aim of this study was to present incidence and diagnostic criteria for EPI after pancreatectomy for cancer and provide a guide for management and optimal therapy in pancreatectomy patients with cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature with publication dates from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A comprehensive diagnostic and treatment algorithm was then created based on literature review and current treatment options.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies were included, 19 combined both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), 9 for central pancreatectomy, and 2 others. EPI was defined subjectively without definitive testing using any of the established diagnostic studies in the majority of studies 23 (76%). Preoperative EPI was calculated to be 11.52%. Most studies assessed exocrine function at least 6 months postoperatively with four studies extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months. EPI diagnosed postoperatively at 1 month (40.27%), 3 months (30.94%), 6 months (36.06%), and 12 months (34.69%). After PD, the median prevalence of postoperative EPI was 43.14%, CP, the median prevalence was 4.85%, DP, median prevalence of postoperative EPI of 11.94%.

CONCLUSION

EPI is a frequent outcome that is often misdiagnosed or under-reported by the patient post-pancreatectomy. Given the increasing overall survival in pancreatectomy patients for cancer, surgeon awareness and assessment is critical to improving patients' overall quality of life.

Achilles'heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy: reconstruction of the remnant pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is a challenging procedure and is considered the Achilles' heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Multiple techniques of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction have been reported, but the optimal technique remains unclear.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides a brief introduction to the developmental status and major related complications of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction. We reviewed all published literature on the technology of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction within the last 5 years and herein discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different reconstruction methods. We also discuss several details of different reconstruction techniques in terms of their significance to the operation and complications.

EXPERT OPINION

No individual method of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is considered optimal for all conditions. The reconstruction strategy should be based on the surgeon's proficiency with laparoscopic technology and the patient's individual risk factors. Personalized methods of pancreatic reconstruction may more effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.

Surgical strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

The current treatment strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), based on the international consensus guideline, has been accepted widely. However, reported outcomes after surgical resection for IPMN show that once the tumor progresses to invasive intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma (IPMC), recurrence is not uncommon. The surgical treatment for IPMN is invasive and sometimes followed by complications. Therefore, the best timing for resection might be at the point when high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is evident. According to previous reports, main duct type IPMN has a high malignant potential and its surgical resection is universally accepted, whereas, the incidence of HGD/invasive IPMC in branch duct and mixed type IPMNs is thought to be lower. In addition to mural nodules and a dilated main pancreatic duct, cytology and measurement of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in the pancreatic juice might be useful to differentiate HGD/invasive IPMC from low-grade dysplasia. The nomogram proposed recently to predict the risk of HGD/invasive IPMC in IPMN patients might help surgeons decide on the best treatment strategy, depending on the patient's age and general condition. Second resection for high-risk lesions in the remnant pancreas might improve the survival of IPMN patients.

Prognostic effect of different etiologies in patients with gastric cardia cancer

There are still many controversies about the characteristics and prognosis of gastric cardia cancer. We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcome between cardia and noncardia cancer. Also, we evaluated the clinical outcome according to etiologic factors.We performed a retrospective cohort study of 92 patients with gastric cardia cancer from January 2003 to December 2013. The patients with noncardia cancer were selected as age- and sex-matched control.The frequencies of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and negative Helicobacter pylori infection without atrophy were significantly higher in gastric cardia cancers, but there was no difference in the frequency of obesity. The frequency of early gastric cancers was 40.0%, which was significantly lower than that of noncardia cancer. The rate of recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival duration were significantly lower in gastric cardia cancers (P < .01), even though there was no significant difference in the rate of curative resection (R0). In terms of the etiologic factors, there were no differences of disease prognosis, regardless of the presence of GERD, obesity, and H pylori infection with associated gastritis.Gastric cardia cancer showed distinct clinical characteristics and a negative prognostic impact compared with gastric noncardia cancer.

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.

A score model based on pancreatic steatosis and fibrosis and pancreatic duct diameter to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy

Purposes

To establish a scoring model for the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

Methods

PD Patients from 7 institutions in 2 independent sets: developmental (n = 457) and validation cohort (n = 152) were retrospectively enrolled and analyzed. Pancreatic Fibrosis (PF) and Pancreatic Steatosis (PS) were assessed by pathological examination of the pancreatic stump.

Results

Stepwise univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm, increased PS and decreased PF were independent risk factors for POPF and Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (CR-POPF). Based on the relative weight and odds ratio of each factor in the POPF, a simplified scoring model was developed. And patients were stratified into high-risk group (22~28 points), medium-risk group (15~21 points) and low-risk group (8~14 points). The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that the Area under the curve for the predictive model was 0.868 and 0.887 in the model design group and the external validation group.

Conclusions

This study establishes a simplified scoring model based on accurately and quantitatively measuring the PS, PF and pancreatic duct diameter. The scoring model accurately predicted the risk of POPF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-019-0534-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

WITHDRAWN: Individualized and pancreatic duct diameter-based strategy for pancreaticoenteric anastomosis during pancreaticoduodenectomy

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

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.

Pancreatic cancer: Open or minimally invasive surgery?

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma is one of the most fatal malignancies, with R0 resection remaining the most important part of treatment of this malignancy. However, pancreatectomy is believed to be one of the most challenging procedures and R0 resection remains the only chance for patients with pancreatic cancer to have a good prognosis. Some surgeons have tried minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but the short- and long-term outcomes of pancreatic malignancy remain controversial between open and minimally invasive procedures. We collected comparative data about minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery. The available evidence suggests that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is as safe and feasible as open PD (OPD), and shows some benefit, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Despite the limited evidence for MIPD in pancreatic cancer, most of the available data show that the short-term oncological adequacy is similar between MIPD and OPD. Some surgical techniques, including superior mesenteric artery-first approach and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with major vein resection, are believed to improve the rate of R0 resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is less technically demanding and is accepted in more pancreatic centers. It is technically safe and feasible and has similar short-term oncological prognosis compared with open distal 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.