Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Innovation in the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms: Same Operations, Narrower Indications, and an Individualized Approach to Decision-Making

Historically, the management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) has been operative. Early intervention for premalignant lesions, including intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN), offers an opportunity to prevent pancreatic cancer-with potential decrement to patients' short-term and long-term health. The operations performed have remained fundamentally the same, with most patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy using oncologic principles. The role of parenchymal-sparing resection and total pancreatectomy remains controversial. We review innovations in the surgical management of PCN, focusing on the evolution of evidence-based guidelines, short-term and long-term outcomes, and individualized risk-benefit assessment.

Is central pancreatectomy an effective alternative to distal pancreatectomy for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors: A 20-year single-center propensity score-matched case-control study

Backgrounds/Aims

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is associated with a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and it is less preferred over distal pancreatectomy (DP). We compared the short- and long-term outcomes between CP and DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors.

Methods

This was a propensity score-matched case-control study of patients who underwent either CP or DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors from 2003 to 2020 in a tertiary care unit in southern India. Patients with a tumor >10 cm or a distal residual stump length of < 4 cm were excluded. Demographics, clinical profile, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the long-term postoperative outcomes for exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, weight gain, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire were compared.

Results

Eighty-eight patients (CP: n=37 [cases], DP: n=51 [control]) were included in the unmatched group after excluding 21 patients (meeting exclusion criteria). After matching, both groups had 37 patients. The clinical and demographic profiles were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss and POPF rates were significantly higher in the CP group. However, Clavien-Dindo grades of complications were similar between the two groups (p = 0.27). At a median follow-up of 38 months (range = 187 months), exocrine sufficiency was similar between the two groups. Endocrine sufficiency, weight gain, SF-36 pain control score, and general health score were significantly better in the CP group.

Conclusions

Despite equivalent clinically significant morbidities, long-term outcomes are better after CP compared to DP in low-grade pancreatic body tumors.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is there proof of transferability of laparoscopic psychomotor skills from the simulator laboratory to the operating room? Results from a systematic review

This systematic review aims to understand better the translation of laparoscopic psychomotor skills, acquired in dry lab training, into a direct patient benefit in actual clinical practice in the operating room. The review was performed according to PRISMA guidance, searching database-specific filters for controlled trials: 'laparoscopy', 'simulator', 'surgical training', 'dry lab', 'psychomotor skills'. We included only RCTs in which the study population was the surgical trainee or novice surgeon with no prior simulation training, and the intervention was simulation training in laparoscopic surgery, regardless of subspecialty. Ten studies were included in this systematic review. The mean performance score was higher compared to the control groups. Fewer errors were noted in the intervention groups. No clinical patient outcomes (mortality, morbidity, quality of life) were addressed in these studies. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Training outside the operating room may lead to better surgical performance and less operative time. Nevertheless, additional studies with better designs are needed to provide more robust evidence.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, complete laparoscopic procedures with intracorporeal reconstruction were performed in laparoscopic colectomies; however, they were scarcely reported in left-side colectomies because of the anatomical reasons. Since the descending colon is extensively fixed to the retroperitoneum, the dissection range required for resection cannot always be enough for a safe extracorporeal anastomosis. We devised an intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn (IC-HHS) technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 11 patients underwent IC-HHS anastomosis for the treatment of colon cancer around the sigmoid-descending (SD) junction. The posterior wall of the anastomosis was constructed with a linear stapler and subsequently, the anterior wall was sutured with an intracorporeal hand-sewn technique. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

IC-HHS reconstruction between the descending colon and sigmoid colon was performed in 11 cases. There were six males and five females with an average age of 66.5 years. The average body mass index was 26.1 kg/m². The averages of the operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 181.2 min (range, 154 to 210 min) and 13.9 ml (range 5-30 ml), respectively. There were no perioperative complications except for one patient with a superficial surgical site infection.

CONCLUSIONS

IC-HHS anastomosis was successfully performed for colon cancer around the SD junction with acceptable perioperative outcomes and there were no procedure-related complications, indicating its feasibility. IC-HHS anastomosis could eliminate unnecessary splenic flexure mobilization in left-side colectomies. IC-HHS anastomosis can be an optional reconstruction for totally laparoscopic colectomies.

Intraoperative Transfusion is Independently Associated with a Worse Prognosis in Resected Pancreatic Cancer-a Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Investigate whether intraoperative transfusion is a negative prognostic factor for oncologic outcomes of resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

From June 2004 to January 2014, the medical records of 305 patients were retrospectively reviewed, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy, distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Patients diagnosed with metastatic disease (n = 3) and locally advanced diseases (n = 15) were excluded during the analysis, and total of 287 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The recurrence and disease-specific survival rates of the patients who received intraoperative transfusion showed poorer survival outcomes compared to those who did not (P = 0.031, P = 0.010). Through multivariate analysis, T status (HR (hazard ratio) = 2.04, [95% CI (confidence interval): 1.13-3.68], P = 0.018), N status (HR = 1.46 [95% CI: 1.00-2.12], P = 0.045), adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.51, [95% CI: 0.35-0.75], P = 0.001), intraoperative transfusion (HR = 1.94 [95% CI: 1.23-3.07], P = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors of disease-specific survival after surgery. As well, adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.67, [95% CI: 0.46-0.97], P = 0.035) was independently associated with tumor recurrence. Estimated blood loss was one of the most powerful factors associated with intraoperative transfusion (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative transfusion can be considered as an independent prognostic factor of resected pancreatic cancer. As well, it can be avoided by following strict transfusion policy and using advanced surgical techniques to minimize bleeding during surgery.

The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Consensus Paper on the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs for Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols or laparoscopic technique has been applied in various surgical procedures. However, the clinical efficacy of combination of the two methods still remains unclear. Thus, our aim was to assess the role of ERAS protocols in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1990 to October 2017. The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the present meta-analysis, the outcomes of 34 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled studies and 19 non-randomized controlled studies) enrolling 3615 patients (1749 in the ERAS group and 1866 in the control group) were pooled. ERAS group was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD - 2.37 days; 95% CI - 3.00 to - 1.73; P 0.000) and earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.63 days; 95% CI - 0.90 to - 0.36; P 0.000). Meanwhile, lower overall postoperative complication rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.51-0.76; P 0.000) and less hospital cost (WMD 801.52 US dollar; 95% CI - 918.15 to - 684.89; P 0.000) were observed in ERAS group. Similar readmission rate (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, P 0.070) and perioperative mortality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.53-3.34; P 0.549) were found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol for laparoscopic abdominal surgery is safe and effective. ERAS combined with laparoscopic technique is associated with faster postoperative recovery without increasing readmission rate and perioperative mortality.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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