Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy

A multi-institutional randomized phase III study comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer; Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG2202 (LAPAN study)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), including laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade owing to its favorable short-term outcomes. However, evidence regarding its oncologic safety is insufficient. In March 2023, a randomized phase III study was launched in Japan to confirm the non-inferiority of overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing MIDP compared with that of patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

This is a multi-institutional, randomized, phase III study. A total of 370 patients will be enrolled from 40 institutions within 4 years. The primary endpoint of this study is overall survival, and the secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival, proportion of patients undergoing radical resection, proportion of patients undergoing complete laparoscopic surgery, incidence of adverse surgical events, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Only a credentialed surgeon is eligible to perform both ODP and MIDP. All ODP and MIDP procedures will undergo centralized review using intraoperative photographs. The non-inferiority of MIDP to ODP in terms of overall survival will be statistically analyzed. Only if non-inferiority is confirmed will the analysis assess the superiority of MIDP over ODP.

DISCUSSION

If our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of MIDP in terms of overall survival, it would validate its short-term advantages and establish its long-term clinical efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCT 1,031,220,705 [ https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1031220705 ].

Pancreatic fistula and biliary fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: 500 patients at a single institution

Background

Pancreatic fistula (PF) and biliary fistula (BF) are two major leakage complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study is to investigate the risk factors of PF and BF after laparoscopic PD (LPD).

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 500 patients who underwent LPD from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020. Clinical data from patients were analysed using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

PF occurred in 86 (17.2%) patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that the soft texture of the pancreas (P = 0.001) was the independent risk factor for PF. BF occurred in 32 (6.4%) patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that history of cardiovascular disease (P < 0.001), surgical time (P = 0.005), pre-operative CA125 (P = 0.036) and pre-operative total bilirubin (P = 0.044) were independent risk factors for BF.

Conclusion

The texture of the pancreas was an independent risk factor for PF after LPD, which was consistent with the literatures. In addition, history of cardiovascular disease, surgical time, pre-operative CA125 and pre-operative total bilirubin were new independent risk factors for BF after LPD. Therefore, patients with high-risk factors of BF should be informed that they are at a high risk for this complication.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Although PNENs generally have a better prognosis than pancreatic cancers, some PNENs display malignant behavior including lymph node (LN) metastasis. Complete tumor resection can be the only potentially curative treatment for patients with resectable PNENs. However, the indications for LN dissection are still controversial. Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery such as laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has been increasingly performed for pancreatic tumors including PNENs.

AIM

To investigate the risk factors for LN metastasis in PNENs and to select appropriate patients for limited surgery by LPS.

METHODS

From April 2001 to December 2019, 92 patients underwent pancreatic resection for PNENs at Kumamoto University Hospital. Finally, 82 patients were enrolled in this study. Using perioperative factors, we examined the predictive factors for LN metastasis in PNENs.

RESULTS

Among the 82 patients, the percentage of LN metastasis according to the pathological findings was 12% (10/82 cases). The median tumor size was 12 mm (range: 5-90 mm). The median tumor size in the LN-positive group (37 mm) was significantly larger than that in the LN-negative group (12 mm) (P = 0.0001). Multivariate analyses revealed that larger tumor size (≥ 20 mm) was an independent risk factor for LN metastasis (odds ratio 16.8, P = 0.0062). In patients with small tumors (≤ 10 mm), LN metastasis was not found.

CONCLUSION

Larger tumor size (≥ 20 mm) is an independent risk factor for LN metastasis in PNENs. In smaller PNENs (≤ 10 mm), we may be able to choose limited surgery without LN dissection.

Learning curve for a surgeon in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy through a "G"-shaped approach: A cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) can achieve similar surgical results to open and PD; however, RPD has a long learning curve and operation time (OT). To address this issue, we have summarized a surgical path to shorten the surgical learning curve and OT.

AIM

To investigate the effective learning curve of a "G"-shaped surgical approach in RPD for patients.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients, who received "G"-shaped RPD (GRPD) by a single surgeon in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from May 2017 to April 2020, were included in this study. The OT, demographic data, intraoperative blood loss, complications, hospitalization time, and pathological results were recorded, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to evaluate the learning curve for GRPD.

RESULTS

According to the CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for GRPD was grouped into two phases: The early and late phases. The OT was 480 ± 81.65 min vs 331 ± 76.54 min, hospitalization time was 22 ± 4.53 d vs 17 ± 6.08 d, and blood loss was 308 ± 54.78 mL vs 169.2 ± 35.33 mL in the respective groups. Complications, including pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, reoperation rate, postoperative death, and delayed gastric emptying, were significantly decreased after this surgical technique.

CONCLUSION

GRPD can improve the learning curve and operative time, providing a new method for shortening the RPD learning curve.

Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy for Mild and Moderate Pediatric Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for pediatric patients with abdominal trauma. Relevant articles were obtained by searching the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until 7 December 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes, standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcome measures, and overall proportion for single proportional outcomes. Nine studies examining 12,492 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed younger age (SMD −0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.52 to −0.42), lower injury severity score (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.57), shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.55, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.50), less complications (OR 0.375, 95% CI 0.309 to 0.455), and lower mortality rate (OR 0.055, 95% CI 0.0.28 to 0.109) in the laparoscopy group compared to the laparotomy group. The majority of patients were able to avoid laparotomy (0.816, 95% CI 0.800 to 0.833). There were no missed injuries during the laparoscopic procedures in seven eligible studies. Laparoscopy for stable pediatric patients showed favorable outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. There were no missed injuries, and laparotomy could be avoided for the majority of patients.

Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres

Pancreatic surgery has been one of the last areas for the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) because there are many factors that make laparoscopic pancreas resections difficult. The concept of service centralization has also limited expertise to a small cadre of high-volume centres in resource rich countries. However, this is not the environment that many surgeons in developing countries work in. These patients often do not have the opportunity to travel to high volume centres for care. Therefore, we sought to review the existing data on MIS for the pancreas and to discuss. In this paper, we review the evolution of MIS on the pancreas and discuss the incorporation of this service into low-volume and resource-poor countries, such as those in the Caribbean. This paper has two parts. First, we performed a literature review evaluating all studies published on laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas. The data in the Caribbean is examined and we discuss tips for incorporating this operation into resource poor hospital practice. Low pancreatic case volume in the Caribbean, and financial barriers to MIS in general, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, enucleation and cystogastrostomy are feasible operations to integrate in to a resource-limited healthcare environment. This is because they can be performed with minimal to no consumables and require an intermediate MIS skillset to complement an open pancreatic surgeon’s peri-operative experience.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

With all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.

The Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy for Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for blunt trauma remain controversial. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the usefulness of laparoscopy in blunt trauma. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to 23 February 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and overall proportions. Overall, 19 studies with a total of 1520 patients were included. All patients were hemodynamically stable. In the laparoscopy group, meta-analysis showed lesser blood loss (SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.51 to −0.05, I² = 62%) and shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.43, I² = 47%) compared with the laparotomy group. Pooled prevalence of missed injury (0.003 (95% CI 0 to 0.023), I² = 0%), nontherapeutic laparotomy (0.004 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.026), I² = 0%), and mortality (0.021 (95% CI 0.010 to 0.043), I² = 0%) were very low in blunt trauma. In subgroup analysis, recently published studies (2011–present) showed lesser conversion rate (0.115 (95% CI 0.067 to 0.190) vs. 0.391 (95% CI 0.247 to 0.556), test for subgroup difference: p < 0.01). This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopy is a safe and feasible option in hemodynamic stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Evaluation of relationship between splenic artery and pancreatic parenchyma using three-dimensional computed tomography for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

AIM

Isolating the root of the splenic artery (SPA) is a challenging procedure in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We investigated the usefulness of evaluation of the relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma using three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

METHODS

In total, 104 patients were evaluated. The relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma was classified into two types: buried and non-buried. Video clips of 50 patients who underwent LDP requiring isolation of the SPA root were reviewed to determine whether the classification is related to difficulty of LDP.

RESULTS

Of the 50 assessed patients who underwent LDP, the relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma was the buried type in 30 (60.0%) and non-buried type in 20 (40.0%). The buried type was associated with a significantly longer median operative time than the non-buried type (285.0 vs. 235.5 min, respectively; P < 0.01). The median time required to isolate the SPA in the buried type (25.8 min; range, 4.0-101 min) was significantly longer than that in the non-buried type (7.0 min; range, 1.0-27.0 min) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative 3D-CT around the pancreas is practical for predicting the difficulty of SPA isolation and determining the safety of the procedure.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Precision anatomy for safe approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for both open and minimally invasive procedure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has recently gained popularity. Several international meetings focusing on the existing literature on MIPD were held; however, the precise surgical anatomy of the pancreas for the safe use of MIPD has not yet been fully discussed. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of available articles and to show the importance of identifying the anatomical variation in pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

In this review, we described variations in surgical anatomy related to MIPD. A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) was conducted, and the references were identified manually.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 272 articles, with 77 retained for analysis. The important anatomy to be considered during MIPD includes the aberrant right hepatic artery, first jejunal vein, first jejunal artery, and dorsal pancreatic artery. Celiac artery stenosis and a circumportal pancreas are also important to recognize.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that only certain anatomical variations are associated directly with perioperative outcomes and that identification of these particular variations is important for safe performance of MIPD.

Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal malignancy of the digestive organs. Although pancreatic resection is essential to radically cure this refractory disease, the multi-organ resection involved, as well as sequelae such as glucose tolerance insufficiency and severe complications impose a heavy burden on these patients. Since the late twentieth century, minimally invasive surgery has become more popular for the surgical management of digestive disease and pancreatic cancer. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR), including pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, is now a treatment option for pancreatic cancer. Some evidence suggests that MIPR for pancreatic cancer provides comparable oncological outcomes to open surgery, with some advantages in perioperative outcomes. However, as this evidence is retrospective, prospective investigations, including randomized controlled trials, are necessary. Because neoadjuvant therapy for resectable or borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer and conversion surgery for initially unresectable pancreatic cancer has become more common, the feasibility of MIPR after neoadjuvant therapy or as conversion surgery requires further assessment. It is expected that progress in surgical techniques and devices, as well as the standardization of surgical procedures and widespread educational programs will improve the outcomes of MIPR.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Advanced laparoscopic HPB surgery: Experience in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

The worldwide trend in surgery has moved from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Likewise, the application of minimally invasive surgery in the hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) field is also rapidly expanding. The field of HBP surgery can be divided into liver, pancreas and biliary fields. Minimally invasive liver surgery is recently developed. However, laparoscopic liver resection in difficult areas is challenging. However, with the accumulation of experiences, laparoscopic liver resection for difficult areas is performed more than before. With more propagation, more and more liver resection will be performed by laparoscopic approach. In minimally surgery for the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy has become a well-recommended procedure in benign and borderline malignancy. There have been several systemic reviews that show advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The reports on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are slowly increasing in spite of technical difficulty, with several systemic reviews showing advantages of the procedure. However, more PD will be performed as robotic-assisted procedures in the future. The laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract malignancy is still in early stages. The laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer has been contraindicated, although there have been encouraging reports from expert centers. The laparoscopic surgery for Klatskin tumor is still an experimental procedure. Robotic-assisted procedures for the surgery of cholangiocarcinoma will be the future. Robotic-assisted surgery for the HBP field is still not well-developed. However, with the necessity of more precise manipulation like intracorporeal suturing, robotic-assisted surgery will be used more often in the field of HBP surgery.

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

Background

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

Results

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

Conclusions

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

Individualized procedures for splenic artery dissection during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

There are no established standard criteria for choosing the most appropriate procedure of splenic artery dissection during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefits of individualized procedures for splenic artery dissection during LDP based on the variations in arterial structure visualized on preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP following 3D-CT at a single center were retrospectively evaluated. 3D-CT images were used to construct virtual 3D laparoscopic images for surgical planning. The splenic artery was classified into two major anatomic types: type S that curves and runs suprapancreatic and type D that runs straight and dorsal to the pancreas. Splenic artery dissection was planned according to these two variations, with type S dissected using an suprapancreatic approach and type D using a dorsal approach.

RESULTS

Type-specific dissection was applied for 30 patients: 25 (83%) with type S and 5 (17%) with type D splenic artery anatomies. In 25 (83%) patients, the splenic artery was successfully dissected using the planned surgical procedure, whereas the surgical plan had to be altered in 5 cases (17%) due to difficulty in dissecting the splenic artery.

CONCLUSION

The individualized procedures for splenic artery dissection according to anatomic variations visualized on 3D-CT images can help improve the success and safety of LDP.

Surgical strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

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

LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT SPLEEN PRESERVATION: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SHORT AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES

Background:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is the preferred approach for resection of tumors in the distal pancreas because of its many advantages over the open approach.

Aim:

To analyse and compare short and long-term outcomes from LDP performed through two different techniques: with splenectomy vs. spleen preservation and splenic vessel preservation.

Method:

Fifty-eight patients were operated and subsequently divided between two groups: Group 1, LDP with splenectomy (LDPS); and Group 2, LDP with spleen preservation and preservation of splenic vessels (LDPSPPSV).

Results:

The epidemiological characteristics were statistically similar between the two groups (age, gender, BMI and lesion size). Both the mean of operative time (p=0.04) and the mean of intra-operative blood loss (p=0,03) were higher in Group 1. The mean of resected lymph nodes was also higher in Group 1 (p<0.000). There were no statistic differences between the groups in relation to open conversion, morbidity or early postoperative mortality. The mean hospital stay was similar between groups. Pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) was similar between the groups. The mean of overall follow-up was 37.6 months (5-96). Late complications were similar between the groups.

Conclusion:

Both techniques were superimposable; however, LDPS presented, respectively, higher intra-operative bleeding, longer duration of the operation and higher number of lymph nodes resected. No differences were observed in the studied period in relation to the appearance of infections or neoplasm related to splenectomy during follow-up. Maintenance of the spleen avoided periodic immunizations in patients in LDPSPSV. It is indicated in small pancreatic lesions with indolent course.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomies for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas

OBJECTIVES

We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPPN) of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting patient characteristics and outcomes of MIP for SPPN was conducted.

RESULTS

We reviewed 27 studies comprising 149 patients with SPPN managed via MIP. Five were comparative retrospective cohort studies, comprising 46 and 60 patients in the minimally-invasive and open groups, respectively. Tumor size was smaller in the minimally-invasive group (mean difference, -2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.09 to -1.32; P < 0.001). The MI group had lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference, -180.19; 95% CI, -344.28 to -16.09; P = 0.03) and transfusion requirement (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04), and a shorter time to diet (mean difference, -2.99; 95% CI, -3.96 to -2.03; P < 0.001) and length of stay (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -6.98 to -0.24; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in operating time, margin positivity, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for SPPN is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements and a shorter postoperative time to diet and hospital stay.

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.

Repair of the portal vein using a hepatic ligamentum teres patch for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has been developed gradually with the advances in surgical laparoscopic techniques. It is technically challenging to perform LPD with portal vein resection and reconstruction.

CASE SUMMARY

A 71-year-old female patient was diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma. After preoperative examination and rigorous preoperative preparation, the patient underwent LPD using 3D laparoscopy on July 17, 2018. During the surgery, we found that the tumor invaded the right wall of the portal vein; thus, pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with partial portal vein wall resection was performed. The defect of the portal vein wall was approximately 2.5 cm × 1.0 cm. The hepatic ligamentum teres was excised by laparoscopy and then recanalized in vitro. Following recanalization, the hepatic ligamentum teres was cut longitudinally and then trimmed into vascular patches that were then used to reconstruct the defect of the portal vein through 3D laparoscopy. The operative time was 560 min, and intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL. The duration of the blood occlusion time was 63 min. No blood transfusion was required. The patient underwent enhanced recovery after surgery procedures after the operation. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 11. Follow-up for 6 months after discharge showed no stenosis of the portal vein and good patency of blood flow.

CONCLUSION

It is safe and feasible to use the hepatic ligamentum teres patch to repair portal vein in LPD. However, the long-term patency of this technique for venous reconstruction requires further investigation.

Outcome of minimally-invasive versus open pancreatectomies for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: A 2:1 matched case-control study

Backgrounds/Aims

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPPN) is typically seen in young healthy females who would likely benefit from minimally-invasive pancreatectomy (MIP). A few comparative studies have suggested that MIP is associated with favorable outcomes when compared to the open approach for SPPN. This study aims to mitigate potential selection bias by performing a matched case-control study comparing MIP vs open pancreatectomy (OP) for SPPN.

Methods

We performed a single-institution retrospective electronic chart review of all patients who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed SPPN between 2000 and 2017. A 2:1 matched comparison using age, gender, tumor size and the type of pancreatectomy was performed between OP and MIP.

Results

A total of 40 patients with a median age of 40.3 years (range 16.5-64.4) and female sex predominance (n=34, 85.0%) underwent surgery during the study period. Nine patients underwent MIP. Matched comparison between 18 OP and 9 MIP demonstrated that MIP was associated with a longer median operating time (305 vs 180 min, p=0.046) and shorter median postoperative stay (6 vs 9 days, p=0.015). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, postoperative morbidity (including postoperative pancreatic fistula) and mortality, resection margins, lymph node yield and long-term survival.

Conclusions

MIP is a safe and viable option in the management of SPPN with the benefit of a shorter postoperative length of stay at the expense of a longer operation time. There was no significant difference in oncologic outcomes between both groups of patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon's experience of 228 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained popularity for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Robotic systems represent the most recent advancement in minimally invasive surgical treatment for such tumors. Theoretically, robotic systems are considered to have several advantages over laparoscopic systems. However, there have been few studies comparing both systems in the treatment of distal pancreatectomy. We compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two treatment modalities.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon at a high-volume center between January 2015 and December 2017.

RESULTS

The analysis included 228 consecutive patients (LDP, n = 182; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [R-LDP], n = 46). Operative time was significantly longer in the R-LDP group than in the LDP group (166.4 vs. 140.7 min; p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who underwent the spleen-preserving approach, the spleen preservation rate associated with R-LDP was significantly higher than that associated with LDP (96.8% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.02). In another subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer, there were no significant differences in median overall and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LDP is a safe and feasible approach with perioperative and oncological outcomes comparable to those of LDP. R-LDP offers an added technical advantage that enables the surgeon to perform a complex procedure with good ergonomic comfort.

A Comparison of Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hepatic and Pancreatic Resections Among the Medicare Population

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures.

RESULTS

A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with segmental resection of superior mesenteric vein-splenic vein-portal vein confluence in pancreatic head cancer: can it be a standard procedure?

The feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer is still disputed. However, advances in surgical technique and accumulating experience have led to the use of LPD with combined vascular resection and reconstruction as a safe and feasible procedure, especially in pancreatic cancer with major vascular involvement. A 64-year-old woman presented with obstructive jaundice secondary to pancreatic head cancer. Contrast abdominopelvic computed tomography revealed a pancreatic head tumor measuring approximately 22 mm in diameter that was abutting the first jejunal branch of the superior mesenteric vein at an angle of <180°. The patient underwent LPD, which failed to resect the pancreatic head tumor invading the superior mesenteric vein. Consequently, segmental resection of the confluence of the superior mesenteric vein, splenic vein, and portal vein (SMV/SV/PV) was completely performed in laparoscopic approach without complication. The patient recovered without any event and was discharged on postoperative day 9. LPD combined with vascular resection and reconstruction is feasible in cases involving major blood vessels. Further surgical expertise and education are required before LPD can be used as a standard procedure.

Difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Several factors affect the level of difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The purpose of this study was to develop a difficulty scoring (DS) system to quantify the degree of difficulty in LDP.

METHODS

We collected clinical data for 80 patients who underwent LDP. A 10-level difficulty index was developed and subcategorized into a three-level difficulty index; 1-3 as low, 4-6 as intermediate, and 7-10 as high index. The automatic linear modeling (LINEAR) statistical tool was used to identify factors that significantly increase level of difficulty in LDP.

RESULTS

The operator's 10-level DS concordance between the 10-level DS by the reviewers, LINEAR index DS, and clinical index DS systems were analyzed, and the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic were at 0.869, 0.729, and 0.648, respectively, showing good to excellent inter-rater agreement. We identified five factors significantly affecting level of difficulty in LDP; type of operation, resection line, proximity of tumor to major vessel, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left-sided portal hypertension/splenomegaly.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel DS for LDP adequately quantified the degree of difficulty, and can be useful for selecting patients for LDP, in conjunction with fitness for surgery and prognosis.

Matched Case-Control Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Malignant Lesions

INTRODUCTION

Advances in surgical technologies allowed safe laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes of LPD to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of safety and recurrence rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of 30 patients were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists, tumor size, pancreatic duct diameter, and histopathologic diagnosis on a 1:1 basis (15 LPD, 15 OPD). Comparison between groups was performed on intention-to-treat basis. Survival following resection was compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The median operating time for LPD group was longer than for OPD group (470 vs. 310 min; P=0.184). However, estimated blood loss (300 vs. 620 mL; P=0.023), high dependency unit stay (2.0 vs. 6.0 d; P=0.013) and postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 17.4 d; P=0.017) were significantly lower in the LPD group. There was no significant difference in postoperative rates of morbidity (40% vs. 67%; P=0.431) and mortality (0% vs. 6.7%; P=0.99). The surgical resection margins R0 status (87% vs. 73%; P=0.79) and the number of lymph nodes (18 vs. 20; P=0.99) in the resected specimens were comparable between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy in the hands of the experienced offers advantages over open surgery without compromising the oncologic resection.

LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY WITH SPLEEN PRESERVATION

Background:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been the choice for resection of distal pancreas lesions due many advantages over open approach. Spleen preservation technique seems minimizes infectious complications in long-term outcome.

Aim:

To present the results of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with spleen preservation by Kimura´s technique (preservation of spleen blood vessels) performed by single surgical team.

Methods:

Retrospective case series aiming to evaluate both short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with spleen preservation.

Results:

A total of 54 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were performed, in which 26 were laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with spleen preservation by Kimura´s technique. Mean age was 47.9 years-old (21-75) where 61.5% were female. Mean BMI was 28.5 kg/m² (18-38.8). Mean diameter of lesion was 4.3 cm (1.8-7.5). Mean operative time was 144.1 min (90-200). Intraoperative bleeding was 119.2 ml (50-600). Conversion to laparotomy 3% (n=1). Postoperative morbidity was 11.5%. Postoperative mortality was null. Mean of hospital stay was 4.8 days (2-14). Mean time of follow-up period was 19.7 months (2-60). There was no neoplasm recurrence or mortality on evaluated period. There was no infectious complication.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with spleen and splenic vessels preservation is feasible, safe, and effective procedure. This technique presented both low morbidity and null mortality on this sample. There were neither infectious complications nor neoplasm recurrence on long-term follow-up period.

Pure laparoscopic pancreas parenchymal dissection using CUSA for distal pancreatectomy

Although stapler dissection and closure is commonly used for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), it is risky in patients with thick pancreatic parenchyma or titanium allergy. We performed laparoscopic pancreatic parenchymal dissection with cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) successfully in a patient with titanium allergy. Slinging the pancreas with nylon tape delineates the surgical plane. Pancreatic parenchyma was transected by CUSA in an almost bloodless field. Pancreatic duct branches and vessels were adequately exposed and dissected with a vessel sealing system. The main pancreatic duct was closed with Hem-O-lock. CUSA is an alternative to stapler dissection during LDP in select patients.

Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P < 0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P = 0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.

Perioperative and Long-term Oncological Results of Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy as Hybrid Technique - A Matched Pair Analysis of 120 Cases

Background Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a highly challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to analyse post-operative morbidity and mortality as well as long term overall survival in patients undergoing hybrid LPD, as compared to open pancreaticoduodenecomy (OPD) in a single surgeon series.

Methods Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in the period from 2000 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. All LPD procedures were performed by one specialised pancreatic surgeon (TK). Patients were matched 1 : 1 for age, sex, BMI, ASA, histological diagnosis, pancreatic texture and portal venous resection (PVR). All LPD procedures were performed as hybrid LPD – combining laparoscopic resection and open reconstruction via mini laparotomy.

Results A total of 549 patients were identified, including 489 patients in the OPD group and 60 patients in the LPD group. 60 patients were identified who underwent LPD between 2010 and 2015 versus 60 OPD patients operated in the same period. Median overall operation time was shorter in the LPD group than with OPD patients (LPD 352 vs. OPD 397 min; p = 0.002). Overall transfusion units were lower in the LPD group (LPD range 0 – 4 vs. OPD range 0 – 11; p = 0.032). Intensive care unit stay (LPD 1 vs. OPD 6 d; p = 0.008) and overall hospital stay (OHS: LPD 14 vs. OPD 18 d; p = 0.012) were shorter in the LPD groups than in the OPD group. As regards postoperative complications, LPD was associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD 15 vs. OPD 36%; p = 0.036) and grade B/C delayed gastric emptying (LPD 8 vs. OPD 20%; p = 0.049). A total of 56 patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. The number of harvested lymph nodes and R0-resection rates were equal for LPD and OPD patients. LPD patients showed a trend to improved median overall survival (LPD mean 56 months vs. OPD mean 48 months; p = 0.056).

Conclusion Hybrid LPD is a safe procedure associated with a reduction in clinically relevant postoperative complications and allows faster recovery. Long term oncological outcome of hybrid LPD for malignant disease is equal to that with the standard open approach.

Benign Tumors of the Pancreas-Radical Surgery Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Local Resection-the Challenge Facing Surgeons

Pancreaticoduodenectomy and left-sided pancreatectomy are the surgical treatment standards for tumors of the pancreas. Surgeons, who are requested to treat patients with benign tumors, using standard oncological resections, face the challenge of sacrificing pancreatic and extra-pancreatic tissue. Tumor enucleation, pancreatic middle segment resection and local, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections are surgical procedures increasingly used as alternative treatment modalities compared to classical pancreatic resections. Use of local resection procedures for cystic neoplasms and neuro-endocrine tumors of the pancreas (panNETs) is associated with an improvement of procedure-related morbidity, when compared to classical Whipple OP (PD) and left-sided pancreatectomy (LP). The procedure-related advantages are a 90-day mortality below 1% and a low level of POPF B+C rates. Most importantly, the long-term benefits of the use of local surgical procedures are the preservation of the endocrine and exocrine pancreatic functions. PD performed for benign tumors on preoperative normo-glycemic patients is followed by the postoperative development of new onset of diabetes mellitus (NODM) in 4 to 24% of patients, measured by fasting blood glucose and/or oral/intravenous glucose tolerance test, according to the criteria of the international consensus guidelines. Persistence of new diabetes mellitus during the long-term follow-up after PD for benign tumors is observed in 14.5% of cases and after surgery for malignant tumors in 15.5%. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after PD is found in the long-term follow-up for benign tumors in 25% and for malignant tumors in 49%. Following LP, 14-31% of patients experience postoperatively NODM; many of the patients subsequently change to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). The decision-making for cystic neoplasms and panNETs of the pancreas should be guided by the low surgical risk and the preservation of pancreatic metabolic functions when undergoing a limited, local, tissue-sparing procedure.

Early postoperative and late metabolic morbidity after pancreatic resections: An old and new challenge for surgeons - A review

The metrics for measuring early postoperative morbidity after resection of pancreatic neoplastic tumors are overall morbidity, severe surgery-related morbidity, frequency of reoperation and reintervention, in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Thirty-day readmission after discharge is additionally an indispensable criterion to assess quality of surgery. The metrics for surgery-associated long-term results after pancreatic resections are survival times, new onset of diabetes (DM), impaired glucose tolerance, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, body mass index and GI motility dysfunctions. Following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) performed on pancreatic normo-glycemic patients for malignant and benign tumors, 4-30% develop postoperative new onset of diabetes. Long-term persistence of diabetes mellitus is observed after surgery for benign tumors in 14% and in 15.5% of patients after cancer resection. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after PD is observed in the early postoperative period in 23-80% of patients. Persistence of exocrine dysfunctions exists in 25% and 49% of patients. Following left-sided pancreatic resection, new onset DM is observed in 14% of cases; an exocrine insufficiency persisting in the long-term outcome is observed in 16-28% of patients.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation and Intraoperative Islet Separation as a Treatment for Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis

Importance

Pain management of patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) can be challenging. Laparoscopy has been associated with markedly reduced postoperative pain but has not been widely applied to total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT).

Objective

To examine the feasibility of using laparoscopic TPIAT (L-TPIAT) in the treatment of CP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Thirty-two patients with CP presented for TPIAT at a tertiary hospital from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. Of the 22 patients who underwent L-TPIAT, 2 patients converted to an open procedure because of difficult anatomy and prior surgery. Pain and glycemic outcomes were recorded at follow-up visits every 3 to 6 months postoperatively.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Operative outcomes included operative time, islet isolation time, warm ischemia time, islet equivalent (IE) counts, estimated blood loss, fluid resuscitation, and blood transfusions. Postoperative outcomes included length of stay, all-cause 30-day readmission rate, postoperative complications, mortality rate, subjective pain measurements, opioid use, random C-peptide levels, insulin requirements, and glycated hemoglobin level.

Results

Of the 32 patients who presented for TPIAT, 20 underwent L-TPIAT (8 men and 12 women; mean [SD] age, 39 [13] years; age range, 21-58 years). Indication for surgery was CP attributable to genetic mutation (n = 9), idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 6), idiopathic pancreatitis with pancreas divisum (n = 3), and alcohol abuse (n = 2). Mean (SD) operative time was 493 (78) minutes, islet isolation time was 185 (37) minutes, and warm ischemia time was 51 (62) minutes. The mean (SD) IE count was 1325 (1093) IE/kg. The mean (SD) length of stay was 11 (5) days, and the all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 35% (7 of 20 patients). None of the patients experienced postoperative surgical site infection, hernia, or small-bowel obstruction, and none died. Eighteen patients (90%) had a decrease or complete resolution of pain, and 12 patients (60%) no longer required opioid therapy at a median follow-up period of 6 months. Postoperative random insulin C-peptide levels were detectable in 19 patients (95%) at a median follow-up of 10.4 months. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, 5 patients (25%) were insulin independent, whereas 9 patients (45%) required 1 to 10 U/d, 5 patients (25%) required 11 to 20 U/d, and 1 patient (5%) required greater than 20 U/d of basal insulin. The mean (SD) glycated hemoglobin level was 7.4% (0.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study represents the first series of L-TPIAT, demonstrating its safety and feasibility. Our approach enables patients to experience shorter operative times and the benefits of laparoscopy, including reduced length of stay and quicker opioid independence.