Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas - technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy-how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSION

This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background

The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking.

Methods

In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265).

Findings

Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; p_{non-inferiority} = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group.

Interpretation

This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Funding

Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

The short- and long-term effect of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy

OBJECTIVE

To explore the short- and long-term effect of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy.

METHODS

From June 2013 to June 2018, 70 patients with gastric cancer underwent total gastrectomy combined with spleno-pancreatectomy involving 37 cases in laparoscopy group and 33 cases in laparotomy group. The intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients in the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopy group, the operation time and the number of positive lymph node dissection was similar to the laparotomy group. Statistical difference was found in intraoperative bleeding [(79.19 ± 39.63)ml vs (214.39 ± 152.47)m1], the number of lymph node dissection [(47.27 ± 13.94) vs (35.45 ± 9.81)], the first time of aerofluxus [(2.92 ± 0.76)d vs (3.76 ± 1.09)d], the first fluid intake time [(7.49 ± 0.96)d vs (8.27 ± 1.91)d] and the postoperative hospital stay [(11.95 ± 1.90)d vs (15.39 ± 4.07)d] (P < 0.05), So the laparoscopy group was significantly superior to the laparotomy group. The incidences of postoperative complications in laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group were 35.13% and 27.27%, and the difference was not statistically significant. (P > 0.05). No stark difference in postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo Classification (P > 0.05). The K-M survival curve showed no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic total gastrectomy in D2 radical treatment combined with spleno-pancreatectomy under membrane anatomy is feasible and safe, which can remove more perigastric lymph nodes. With advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and fast postoperative recovery, it cannot increase postoperative complications and long-term survival are comparable to open surgery.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Laparoscopic Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy with Anterocranial Splenic Artery-First Approach for Left-Sided Resectable Pancreatic Cancer (with Videos)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (Lap-RAMPS) for left-sided pancreatic cancer remains a technically challenging procedure. How to approach the splenic artery in laparoscopic surgery has not been discussed in adequate detail, and the implications of an artery-first approach in left-sided pancreatic cancer remain unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-five consecutive patients with left-sided resectable pancreatic cancer underwent Lap-RAMPS between July 2018 and September 2020. They were divided according to whether Lap-RAMPS was performed using an anterocranial splenic artery-first (ASF) approach (ASF group, n = 23) or via another approach (non-ASF group, n = 22). Clinical, pathological, and short-term outcomes were reviewed and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The ASF approach was performed safely in all patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer, and none required conversion to laparotomy. The ASF group had better outcomes in terms of conspicuous bleeding from the spleen during splenic mobilization (P = 0.016) and blood pooling during posterior dissection (P = 0.035). Consequently, blood loss was significantly less and operation time was significantly shorter in the ASF group than in the non-ASF group. There was no significant between-group difference in other short-term outcomes, including mortality, length of hospital stay, or Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASF approach was safe when performed for resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer and may help to prevent congestion of the pancreas and lessen intraoperative blood loss.

Converted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is there an impact on patient outcome and total cost?

PURPOSE

Recent studies have reported worse outcomes of converted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (CLDP) with respect to total laparoscopic (TLDP) and open (ODP). The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on patient outcome and on total cost.

METHODS

Patients requiring a conversion (CLDP) were compared with both TLDP and ODP patients. The relevant patient- and tumour-related variables were collected for each patient. Both intra and postoperative data were extracted. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was carried out to equate the groups compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred and five patients underwent DP, 105 (51.2%) ODPs, 81 (39.5%) TLDPs, and 19 (9.3%) CLDPs. After PSM, 19 CLDPs, 38 TLDPs, and 38 ODPs were compared. Patients who underwent CLDP showed a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), and an increase in blood loss (P = 0.032) and total cost (P = 0.034) with respect to TLDP, and a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), less frequent postoperative morbidity (P = 0.050), and a higher readmission rate (P = 0.035) with respect to ODP.

CONCLUSION

Total laparoscopic pancreatectomy was superior regarding operative findings and total costs with respect to CLDP; ODP showed a higher postoperative morbidity rate and a lower readmission rate with respect to CLDP. However, the reasons for the readmission of patients who underwent CLDP were mainly related to postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B which is usually due to pancreas texture. Thus, the majority of distal pancreatectomies can be started using a minimally invasive approach, performing an early conversion if necessary.

HOW TO PERFORM LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY USING THE CLOCKWISE TECHNIQUE

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.

Methods/design

DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265. Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Surgical approaches for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

The Usefulness of a Preoperative Nomogram for Predicting the Probability of Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) represents a challenging procedure with a high conversion rate. A nomogram is a simple statistical predictive tool which is superior to risk groups. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a preoperative nomogram for predicting the probability of conversion from laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LDP. For each patient demographic, pre-intra- and postoperative data were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify the factors significantly influencing the conversion rate. The effect of each factor was weighted using the beta coefficient (β), and a nomogram was built. Finally, a logistic regression between the score and the conversion rate was carried out to calibrate the nomogram.

Results

The conversion rate was 19.0%. At multivariate analysis, female (β =  − 1.8 ± 0.9; P = 0.047) and tail location of the tumor (β =  − 2.1 ± 1.1; P = 0.050) were significantly related to a low probability of conversion. Body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.2 ± 0.1; P = 0.011) and subtotal pancreatectomy (β = 2.4 ± 0.9; P = 0.006) were factors independently related to a high probability of conversion. The nomogram constructed had a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 18 points. The probability of conversion increased significantly starting from a minimum score of 6 points (P = 0.029; conversion probability 14.4%; 95%CI, 1.5–27.3%) up to 16 (P = 0.048; 27.8%; 95%CI, 0.2–48.7%).

Conclusion

The nomogram proposed could serve as an effective preoperative tool capable of assessing the probability of conversion, allowing to take reliable decisions regarding indications and adequate stepwise training program of LDP.

Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: Expert consensus guidelines by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

BACKGROUND

The aim was to evaluate the various operative techniques and outcomes used to manage the pancreatic transection plane (or stump) during a left (distal) pancreatectomy and to develop expert consensus guidelines.

METHODS

Evidence-based, clinically relevant questions were discussed and then were circulated among members of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. After agreement on the questions and statements, voting in a 9-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of objective support for each.

RESULTS

Studies using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula including 16 randomized trials were reviewed to generate a series of statements set into 14 domains. There was strong consensus in the following statements: there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after left pancreatectomy between the handsewn and stapler techniques; a stapling technique could not be used in all cases of left pancreatectomy; the use of an energy-based tissue sealant or a chemical sealant device or combinations of these did not impact the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate; there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; and there are 1 or more clinically important, patient-related risk factors associated with the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate. There was weak or conditional agreement on the use of prophylactic somatostatin analogs, stents, stump closure, stump anastomosis, and the role of abdominal drains.

CONCLUSION

Areas of strong consensus suggests a change in clinical practice and priority setting. Eight domains with lower agreement will require novel approaches and large multicenter studies to determine future key areas of practice.

Predictors for Survival in an International Cohort of Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background

Surgical factors, including resection of Gerota’s fascia, R0-resection, and lymph node yield, may be associated with survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but evidence from large multicenter studies is lacking. This study aimed to identify predictors for overall survival after DP for PDAC, especially those related to surgical technique.

Patients and Methods

Data from an international retrospective cohort including patients from 11 European countries and the USA who underwent DP for PDAC (2007–2015) were analyzed. Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed and included Gerota’s fascia resection, R0 resection, lymph node ratio, extended resection, and a minimally invasive approach.

Results

Overall, 1200 patients from 34 centers with median follow-up of 15 months [interquartile range (IQR) 5–31 months] and median survival period of 30 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 27–33 months] were included. Gerota’s fascia resection [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; p = 0.019], R0 resection (HR 0.70; p = 0.006), and decreased lymph node ratio (HR 0.28; p < 0.001) were associated with improved overall survival, whereas extended resection (HR 1.75; p < 0.001) was associated with worse overall survival. A minimally invasive approach did not improve survival as compared with an open approach (HR 1.14; p = 0.350). Adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.67; p = 0.003) was also associated with improved overall survival.

Conclusions

This international cohort identified Gerota’s fascia resection, R0 resection, and decreased lymph node ratio as factors associated with improved overall survival during DP for PDAC. Surgeons should strive for R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy and could also consider Gerota’s fascia resection in their routine surgical approach.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-020-08658-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conversion to open laparotomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: lessons from a single-center experience in 70 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing conversion from laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open surgery, and the effect of such conversion on the outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 70 consecutive patients undergoing LDP. The primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery during LDP. The secondary endpoints were determining the reasons for conversion to open surgery, with detailed analyses of these cases and a comparison of the surgical outcome with and without conversion.

RESULTS

Seven patients (10%) required conversion to open surgery during LDP. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was identified as a risk factor for conversion (p = 0.010). The reasons for conversion included technical difficulty (two bleeding, one severe adhesion) and pancreatic stump-related issues (two margin-positive, two stapling failures). Although the overall morbidity rate (29 vs. 11%, p = 0.48) and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (14 vs. 5%, p = 0.82) were no different for the patients with or without open conversion, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the former (median 15 vs. 10 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Careful preoperative assessment is required when planning LDP for PDAC. Although conversion to open surgery does not result in failure of LDP, efforts to reduce the duration of postoperative hospital stay and the occurrence of complications are desirable to improve the outcome of LDP.

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.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC.

METHODS

This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.

RESULTS

In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly being performed as an alternative to open surgery. Whether the implementation and corresponding learning curve of LDP have an impact on patient outcome is unknown. The aim was to investigate the temporal trends in practice across UK centres.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study of LDP in 11 tertiary referral centres in the UK between 2006 and 2016. The learning curve was analysed by pooling data for the first 15 consecutive patients who had LDP and examining trends in surgical outcomes in subsequent patients.

RESULTS

In total, 570 patients underwent LDP, whereas 888 underwent open resection. For LDP the median duration of operation was 240 min, with 200 ml blood loss. The conversion rate was 12·1 per cent. Neuroendocrine tumours (26·7 per cent) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (19·7 per cent) were commonest indications. The proportion of LDPs increased from 24·4 per cent in 2006-2009 (P1) to 46·0 per cent in 2014-2016 (P3) (P < 0·001). LDP was increasingly performed for patients aged 70 years or more (16 per cent in P1 versus 34·4 per cent in P3; P = 0·002), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (6 versus 19·1 per cent; P = 0·005) and advanced malignant tumours (27 versus 52 per cent; P = 0·016). With increasing experience, there was a trend for a decrease in blood transfusion rate (14·1 per cent for procedures 1-15 to 3·5 per cent for procedures 46-75; P = 0·008), ICU admissions (32·7 to 19·2 per cent; P = 0·021) and median duration of hospital stay (7 (i.q.r. 5-9) to 6 (4-7) days; P = 0·002). After 30 procedures, a decrease was noted in rates of both overall morbidity (57·7 versus 42·2 per cent for procedures 16-30 versus 46-75 respectively; P = 0·009) and severe morbidity (18·8 versus 9·7 per cent; P = 0·031).

CONCLUSION

LDP has increased as a treatment option for lesions of the distal pancreas as indications for the procedure have expanded. Perioperative outcomes improved with the number of procedures performed.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Tumor manipulation during pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer induces dissemination of tumor cells into the peritoneal cavity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative tumor manipulation may induce the dissemination of occult peritoneal tumor cells (OPTC) into the peritoneal cavity.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to March 15, 2017. Eligible were studies that analyzed the presence of OPTC in peritoneal fluid, by any method, both before and after resection in adults who underwent intentionally curative pancreatic resection for histopathologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in absence of macroscopic peritoneal metastases.

RESULTS

Four studies with 138 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of OPTC prior to tumor manipulation was 8% (95% CI 2%-24%). The pooled detection rate of OPTC in patients in whom OPTC became detectable only after tumor manipulation was 33% (95% CI 15-58%). Only one study (28 patients) reported on survival, which was worse in patients with OPTC (median 11.1 months versus 30.3 months; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that tumor manipulation induces OPTC in one third of patients with pancreatic cancer. Since data on survival are lacking, future studies should determine the prognostic consequences of tumor manipulation, including the potential therapeutic effect of 'no-touch' and minimally invasive resection strategies.

Can standardized pathology examination increase the lymph node yield following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Lymph node yield (LNY) is an indicator of oncological adequacy of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Our hypothesis is that standardized pathology examination (SPE) aimed at accurate staging can increase the LNY without changing surgical technique.

METHODS

After the introduction of SPE for distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens at Oslo University Hospital, prospective data were collected on patients with PDAC undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDP). Their data were compared with retrospective data from specimens examined in a non-standardized way (NSPE).

RESULTS

SPE and NSPE were applied to 20 and 33 specimens, respectively. SPE was associated with a higher LNY and a higher median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) in the specimen (18 vs 7, P = 0.001 and 4 vs 1, P = 0.005, respectively). In the stepwise regression model, SPE and younger age resulted in an increased LNY. In the logistic regression model, increased LNY and larger tumor size positively correlated with the presence of PLN.

CONCLUSION

SPE of distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens is associated with higher LNY in patients with PDAC, which increases the likelihood of detecting PLN and reduces the risk of understaging. These findings also indicate that the LDP technique provides an adequate LNY in patients with PDAC.

International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) "Coimbatore Summit Statements"

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as "Coimbatore Summit Statements".

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Long-term oncologic outcomes after standard resection

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only curative option in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Little is known about the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. This bi-institutional study aimed to examine the long-term oncologic results of standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

From January 2002 to March 2016, 207 patients underwent standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway) and Asan Medical Centre (Seoul, Republic of Korea). After the exclusion criteria were applied (distant metastases at operation, conversion to an open operation, loss to follow-up), 186 patients were eligible for the analysis. Perioperative and oncologic variables were analyzed for association with recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Median overall and recurrence-free survivals were 32 and 16 months, while 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates were estimated to be 38.2% and 35.9%, respectively. Ninety-six (52%) patients developed recurrence: 56 (30%) extrapancreatic, 27 (15%) locoregional, and 13 (7%) combined locoregional and extrapancreatic. Thirty-seven (19.9%) patients had early recurrence (within 6 months of operation). In the multivariable analysis, tumor size >3 cm and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with early recurrence (P = .017 and P = .015, respectively). The Cox regression model showed that tumor size >3 cm and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of decreased recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with satisfactory long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Several risk factors, such as tumor size >3 cm, no adjuvant chemotherapy, and lymphovascular invasion, are linked to poor prognosis after standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Internal hernia through a transverse mesocolon defect after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Report of a case

We report a case of an internal hernia through a transverse mesocolon defect after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The patient was a 58-year-old man with an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreatic body who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During surgery, an approximately 5-cm defect in the transverse mesocolon was inadvertently made. The defect was not closed as it was thought to be large enough to preclude incarceration. However, the patient developed a bowel obstruction 2 months postoperatively. Laparotomy revealed that a loop of the proximal jejunum herniated through the defect and was adherent to the stapled pancreatic stump. An additional loop of the jejunum was herniated through the narrowed mesenteric defect. To our knowledge, this is the first case of an internal hernia through a transverse mesocolon defect after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term clinical outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) comparing with laparoscopy total mesorectal excision (LapTME) for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched from the databases of Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The qualities of all of the included studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The synthesized outcomes were pooled using fixed-effects models or random-effects models, which weighted the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A funnel plot was used to evaluate the publication bias.

RESULTS

Seven original studies including 209 TaTME patients and 257 LapTME patients with rectal cancer met the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. Compared with LapTME, TaTME showed a longer CRM, lower rate of positive CRM, complete TME rate, and less operative time. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of the harvested lymph nodes, distal margin distance, hospital stay, intraoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, or conversion between the TaTME group and the LapTME group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LapTME, TaTME is a feasible and safe approach for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. In addition, TaTME showed a better short-term clinical outcomes, such as a longer CRM, lower risk of positive CRM, higher complete quality of TME rate, and shorter operative duration. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required.