Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented?

Comparison of short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

Backgrounds/Aims

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the key worry in the ongoing debate about the safety and effectiveness of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD). Laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD), a hybrid approach combining laparoscopic resection and anastomosis with a small incision, is an alternative to TLPD. This study compares the short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy of LAPD vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data of all patients who underwent LAPD or OPD for periampullary carcinoma at a tertiary care center in Northeast India from July 2019 to August 2023 was done. A total of 30 LAPDs and 30 OPDs were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. Demographic data, intraoperative and postoperative data (30 days), and pathological data were compared.

Results

The study included a total of 93 patients, 30 underwent LAPD and 62 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching, the matched cohort included 30 patients in both groups. The LAPD presented several advantages over the OPD group, including a shorter incision length, reduced postoperative pain, earlier initiation of oral feeding, and shorter hospital stays. LAPD was not found to be inferior to OPD in terms of pancreatic fistula incidence (Grade B, 30.0% vs. 33.3%), achieving R0 resection (100% vs. 93.3%), and the number of lymph nodes harvested (12 vs. 14, p = 0.620). No significant differences in blood loss, short-term complications, pathological outcomes, readmissions, and early (30-day) mortality were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

LAPD has comparable safety, technical feasibility, and short-term oncological efficacy.

Impact of conversion at time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy on perioperative and long-term outcomes: Review of the National Cancer Database

Backgrounds/Aims

Current literature presents limited data regarding outcomes following conversion at the time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD).

Methods

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified into three groups: MI-PD, converted to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (CO-PD), and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PD). Multivariable modeling was applied to compare outcomes of MI-PD and CO-PD to those of O-PD.

Results

Of 17,570 patients identified, 12.5%, 4.2%, and 83.4% underwent MI-PD, CO-PD, and O-PD, respectively. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) resulted in a higher lymph node yield (n = 23.2 ± 12.2) even when requiring conversion (n = 22.4 ± 13.2, p < 0.001). Margin positivity was higher in the CO-PD group (26.6%) than in the MI-PD group (21.3%) and the O-PD (22.6%) group (p = 0.017). Length of stay was shorter in the MI-PD group (laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy 10.4 ± 8.6, R-PD 10.6 ± 8.8) and the robotic converted to open group (10.7 ± 6.4) than in the laparoscopic converted to open group (11.2 ± 9) and the O-PD group (11.5 ± 8.9) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, both MI-PD (odds ratio = 1.40; p < 0.001) and CO-PD (odds ratio = 1.24; p = 0.020) were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of long-term survival.

Conclusions

CO-PD does not negatively impact perioperative or oncologic outcomes.

Targeting KRAS in PDAC: A New Way to Cure It?

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most intractable malignant tumors worldwide, and is known for its refractory nature and poor prognosis. The fatality rate of pancreatic cancer can reach over 90%. In pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC), the most common subtype of pancreatic cancer, KRAS is the most predominant mutated gene (more than 80%). In recent decades, KRAS proteins have maintained the reputation of being “undruggable” due to their special molecular structures and biological characteristics, making therapy targeting downstream genes challenging. Fortunately, the heavy rampart formed by KRAS has been broken down in recent years by the advent of KRASG12C inhibitors; the covalent inhibitors bond to the switch-II pocket of the KRASG12C protein. The KRASG12C inhibitor sotorasib has been received by the FDA for the treatment of patients suffering from KRASG12C-driven cancers. Meanwhile, researchers have paid close attention to the development of inhibitors for other KRAS mutations. Due to the high incidence of PDAC, developing KRASG12D/V inhibitors has become the focus of attention. Here, we review the clinical status of PDAC and recent research progress in targeting KRASG12D/V and discuss the potential applications.

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.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Hepatic vascular anomalies during totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: challenging the challenge

The presence of hepatic vascular anomalies may add challenges to an already difficult surgery such as pancreatoduodenectomy, particularly when performed laparoscopically. Thus, our aim was to assess the impact of an aberrant right hepatic artery (aRHA) on postoperative outcomes during laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) . Data of patients who underwent LPD were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed. Patients with types III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX anomalies according to Michels' classification were included in the aRHA group and were compared with the remaining patients (nRHA group). 72 patients underwent LPD; 14 of these had an aRHA (19.4%). Except for BMI (p = 0.021), the two groups did not differ in terms of clinico-pathological characteristics. The two groups had similar postoperative complications (p = 0.123), pancreatic fistula (p = 0.790), biliary leakage (p = 0.209), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (p = 0.790), reoperations (p = 0.416), and mortality (p = 0.312). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was higher in aRHA group (p = 0.032), while R0 resection rate was similar between groups (p = 0.635). At the multivariate analysis, only moderate/high FRS (OR 3.95, p = 0.039) was an independent predictor of postoperative complications. This study suggests that aRHA has no negative impact on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing LPD.

Central vascular ligation and mesentery based abdominal surgery

In the nineteenth century the idea of a correct surgical approach in oncologic surgery moved towards a good lymphadenectomy. In colon cancer the segment is removed with adjacent mesentery, in gastric cancer or pancreatic cancer a good oncologic resection is obtained with adequate lymphadenectomy. Many guidelines propose a minimal lymph node count that the surgeon must obtain. Therefore, it is essential to understand the adequate extent of lymphadenectomy to be performed in cancer surgery. In this review of the current literature, the focus is on "central vascular ligation", understood as radical lymphadenectomy in upper and lower gastrointestinal cancer, the evolution of this approach during the years and the improvement of laparoscopic techniques. For what concerns laparoscopic surgery, the main goal is to minimize post-operative trauma introducing the "less is more" concept whilst preserving attention for oncological outcomes. This review will demonstrate the importance of a scientifically based standardization of oncologic gastrointestinal surgery, especially in relation to the expansion of minimally invasive surgery and underlines the importance to further investigate through new randomized trials the role of extended lymphadenectomy in the new era of a multimodal approach, and most importantly, an era where minimally invasive techniques and the idea of "less is more" are becoming the standard thought for the surgical approach.

Laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: Initial single center experience

Backgrounds/Aims

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the gold standard for the treatment of periampullary tumors. Many specialized centers have adopted the totally laparoscopic or hybrid laparoscopic PD (LPD). However, this procedure has not yet been standardized and serious debate is taking place towards its safety and feasibility. Herein, we report our recent experience whit hybrid-LPD.

Methods

During 2019 in our department 56 PD were performed and 21 (37.5%) underwent hybrid-LPD. We have retrospectively reviewed the short-term outcomes of these patients.

Results

Main indication was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (71,4%). The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were respectively 425 min (range, 226 to 576) and 317 ml (range 60 to 800 ml). Conversion to an open procedure was required in 4 patients (19%): 2 with suspected vein involvement, 1 for mesenteric panniculitis and 1 for biliary injury. The post-operative complication rate was 42.8% (9/21). Regarding post-operative pancreatic fistula, three patients (14.2%) had grade B and 1 grade C (4.7%). Median length of hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-23) and 90- days mortality was 4.7%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.7 (range 12 to 26). The rate of margins R0 was 80%; R1 ＞0<1 mm was 10.5% and R1 0 mm was 9.5%.

Conclusions

Hydrid-LPD is safe and feasible. Careful patient selection and increasing experience can reduce the risk of post-operative complications.

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.

Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a highly fatal disease with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 10% in the USA, and it is becoming an increasingly common cause of cancer mortality. Risk factors for developing pancreatic cancer include family history, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tobacco use. Patients typically present with advanced disease due to lack of or vague symptoms when the cancer is still localised. High quality computed tomography with intravenous contrast using a dual phase pancreatic protocol is typically the best method to detect a pancreatic tumour and to determine surgical resectability. Endoscopic ultrasound is an increasingly used complementary staging modality which also allows for diagnostic confirmation when combined with fine needle aspiration. Patients with pancreatic cancer are often divided into one of four categories based on extent of disease: resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced, and metastatic; patient condition is also an important consideration. Surgical resection represents the only chance for cure, and advancements in adjuvant chemotherapy have improved long-term outcomes in these patients. Systemic chemotherapy combinations including FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, folinic acid [leucovorin], irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel remain the mainstay of treatment for patients with advanced disease. Data on the benefit of PARP inhibition as maintenance therapy in patients with germline BRCA1 or BRACA2 mutations might prove to be a harbinger of advancement in targeted therapy. Additional research efforts are focusing on modulating the pancreatic tumour microenvironment to enhance the efficacy of the immunotherapeutic strategies.

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Hybrid and Totally Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complicated procedure accompanied with high morbidity. Hybrid LPD is usually used as an alternative/transitional approach. This study aimed to prove whether the hybrid procedure is a safe procedure during a surgeon's learning curve of LPD. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 48 hybrid LPD patients and 62 TLPD patients selected from January 2016 to December 2018; their demographics, surgical outcomes, and oncological data were retrospectively collected. Patient follow-up for the study continued until February 2020. RESULTS Patient demographics and baseline parameters were well balanced between the 2 groups. Intraoperative conditions, overall operation time was shorter for TLPD compared to hybrid LPD (407.79 minutes versus 453.29 minutes, respectively; P=0.035) and blood loss was less in TLPD patients compared to hybrid LPD patients (100.00 mL versus 300.00 mL, respectively; P<0.001). There was no difference in transfusion rates between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 16.7% versus TLPD 4.8%; P=0.084). Postoperative outcomes and intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in the hybrid LPD patient group (hybrid LPD 1-day versus TLPD 0-day, P=0.002) and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the 2 groups (P=0.503). Reoperation rates, in-hospital, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups (P=0.276, 1.000, 1.000, 0.884, respectively). Surgical site infection, bile leak, Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥3, delayed gastric emptying, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulae, and grade B/C post pancreatectomy hemorrhage were not different between the 2 groups (P=0.526, 0.463, 0.220, 0.089, 0.165, 0.757, respectively). The tumor size, margin status, lymph nodes harvested, and metastasis were similar in the 2 groups (P=0.767, 0.438, 0.414, 0.424, respectively). In addition, the median overall survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 29.0 months versus TLPD 30.0 months, P=0.996) as were the progression-free survival rates (hybrid LPD 11.0 months versus TLPD 12.0 months, P=0.373) CONCLUSIONS Hybrid LPD was comparable to TLPD. Hybrid LPD could be performed safely when some surgeons first started LPD (during the operative learning curve), while for skilled surgeons, TLPD could be applied initially.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess feasibility and outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD).

BACKGROUND

Whereas expert centers have reported promising outcomes of LPD, nationwide analyses have raised concerns on its safety, especially during the learning curve. Multicenter, structured LPD training programs reporting outcomes including the first procedures are lacking. No LPD had been performed in the Netherlands before this study.

METHODS

During 2014-2016, 8 surgeons from 4 high-volume centers completed the Longitudinal Assessment and Realization of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery (LAELAPS-2) training program in LPD, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring. In all centers, LPD was performed by 2 surgeons with extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes of all LPDs were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

In total, 114 patients underwent LPD. Median pancreatic duct diameter was 3 mm [interquartile range (IQR = 2-4)] and pancreatic texture was soft in 74% of patients. The conversion rate was 11% (n = 12), median blood loss 350 mL (IQR = 200-700), and operative time 375 minutes (IQR = 320-431). Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 34% of patients, requiring catheter drainage in 22% and re-operation in 2%. A Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complication occurred in 43% of patients. Median length of hospital stay was 15 days (IQR = 9-25). Overall, 30-day and 90-day mortality were both 3.5%. Outcomes were similar for the first and second part of procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This LPD training program was feasible and ensured acceptable outcomes during the learning curve in all centers. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings and assess the added value of LPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, P < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, P = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, P < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, P = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, P < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), P < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, P = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, P = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, P = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, P < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.

Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma

It is not clear which of the 2 principal treatments for patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), has greater safety and efficacy. We performed the present meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of both treatments for PDAC patients undergoing LPD. Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to October 2018) comparing LPD with OPD for PDAC. Short- and long-term oncological outcomes were evaluated. Six studies were qualified for inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis with a total of 9144 PDAC participants. Regarding safety, there were fewer overall postoperative complications associated with LPD (P = 0.005), but the results were similar in terms of pancreatic fistula and mortality. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a better trend of performance both in R0 resection (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.07; P = 0.07) and preserved lymph nodes (median, 2.14; 95% CI, -0.21 to 4.49; P = 0.07). Long-term overall survival was comparable between LPD and OPD (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.13; P = 0.49). In conclusion, LPD was found to be a suitable alternative to OPD in selected PDAC patients with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

A Combination of Robotic Approach and ERAS Pathway Optimizes Outcomes and Cost for Pancreatoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway implementation on outcomes, and cost of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND

ERAS pathways have shown benefit in open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The impact of ERAS on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive RPD and OPDs in the pre-ERAS (July, 2014-July, 2015) and ERAS (July, 2015-July, 2016) period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine impact of ERAS and operative approach alone, or in combination (pre-ERAS + OPD, pre-ERAS + RPD, ERAS + OPD, ERAS + RPD) on length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall cost.

RESULTS

In all, 254 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies (RPD 62%, OPD 38%) were analyzed (median age 67, 47% female). ERAS patients had shorter LOS (6 vs 8 days; P = 0.004) and decreased overall cost (USD 20,362 vs 24,277; P = 0.001) compared with non-ERAS patients, whereas RPD was associated with decreased LOS (7 vs 8 days; P = 0.0001) and similar cost compared with OPD. On multivariable analysis (MVA), RPD was predictive of shorter LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.67, P = 0.002), whereas ERAS was protective against high cost (OR 0.57, CI 0.33-0.97, P = 0.037). On MVA, when combining operative approach with ERAS pathway use, a combined ERAS + RPD approach was associated with reduced LOS and optimal cost compared with other combinations (pre-ERAS + OPD, pre-ERAS + RPD, ERAS + OPD).

CONCLUSION

ERAS implementation is independently associated with cost savings for pancreatoduodenectomy. A combination of ERAS and robotic approach synergistically decreases hospital stay and overall cost compared with other strategies.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

Background

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

Main body

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

Conclusion

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.

Pitfalls of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to abdominal surgical procedures have provided superior outcomes when compared to the open approach and thus have become the standard of care. However, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) presents unique difficulties for both laparoscopic and robotic platforms and remains controversial. Ongoing concerns continue about the minimally invasive approach creating meaningful benefit when system-wide data may suggest MIPD results in increased morbidity and mortality during the learning curve. This treatise explores the current state of MIPD, reviewing the volume and quality of data that supports benefit while contrasting the benefits to the unique challenges associated with MIPD that may lead to unacceptable rates of complications and death. We conclude that in a handful of centers, MIPD confers an iterative but not transformative benefit. Significant barriers to the wide-spread acceptance of MIPD are apparent and persist, including: lack of high level data confirming clinical benefit, well defined patient selection criteria, formal education programs that address challenges of the learning curve, and ultimately value.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: patients' interest should be the goal of health care

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the fourth deadliest malignancy in developed countries and is predicted to become the second one within the 2030. The present work focuses on the state of the art of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, including results of recent randomized trials, and discusses technical challenge and patients' interest of this technique.

The impact of unplanned conversion to an open procedure during minimally invasive pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) is being increasingly utilized. Outcomes for patients experiencing unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIPR have been incompletely assessed. We sought to determine the short-term outcomes and factors associated with unplanned conversion during MIPR.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program pancreatectomy-targeted data set was conducted. Successful MIPR was compared with unplanned conversion. Propensity matching was used to separately compare unplanned conversion during MIPR with planned open pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Unplanned conversion occurred in 24.6% of 350 attempted minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and 19.6% of 1174 attempted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). Conversion was associated with greater overall morbidity and 30-day mortality compared with successful MIPR for both MIPD and MIDP. After matching, unplanned conversion resulted in outcomes equivalent or inferior to open pancreatectomy. Factors significantly associated with unplanned conversion during MIPD included intermediate gland texture, vascular resection, hypertension, disseminated cancer, and chronic steroid use. For MIDP, male sex, hard gland texture, vascular resection, smoking, and recent weight loss were independently associated with conversion. A robotic approach was inversely associated with conversion for MIPD and MIDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversion during MIPR is associated with greater morbidity and 30-day mortality. Conversion resulted in outcomes that, at best, mimicked those of open pancreatectomy. Several risk factors including the need for vascular resection are associated with unplanned conversion and should be acknowledged when planning an operative approach.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections in two medium-sized medical centres

To analyze the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic neoplasms, in two medium-volume centers in Northern Italy, a retrospective chart review was performed in the operative registries, searching for patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery via laparoscopy, irrespective of the final pathological nature of the resected neoplasm. For each case, a standard data extraction form was completed and the following data was extracted: age and sex, type of resection, estimated blood loss, length of the operation, number of harvested nodes, post-operative pancreatic fistula, major post-operative complications, mortality and final pathological diagnosis. The systematic literature research was also undertaken and the reported results were analyzed. A total of 55 cases were recorded, including 39 distal pancreatectomies and 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies. The most frequent indications leading to surgery were ductal adenocarcinoma (26 pts) and cystic neoplasm (22 pts). No post-operative death occurred in this series; pancreatic fistula occurred in 64% of distal pancreatectomies and 22% of pancreaticoduodenectomies. The mean operating times were 178' and 572', respectively. Both distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy proved to be feasible and were safely performed by laparoscopy, in two centers with medium-volume pancreatic caseload.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with uncinated process approach: A comparative study evaluating perioperative outcomes (Retrospective cohort study)

BACKGROUND

Few studies on the uncinate process-first approach in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) have been reported. The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes of LPD to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of feasibility, safety, and efficacy using the uncinate process-first approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 102 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2013 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: the laparoscopic surgery group (n = 47) and open surgery group (n = 55). The clinical characteristics and intra- and postoperative data were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

LPD was performed successfully in all 47 patients. The mean operation time was significantly longer in the LPD group (410 ± 68 min) than in the OPD group (245 ± 70 min; P < 0.05). LPD produced significantly less intraoperative blood loss (210 ± 46 mL vs 420 ± 50 mL, P < 0.05), shorter first flatus time (1.5 d vs 4 d, P < 0.05) and shorter diet start time (2 d vs 5 d, P < 0.05). The total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LPD group, with a median of 13 ± 4 days versus 18 ± 5.5 days in the OPD group (P < 0.05). The postoperative complication rates of the LPD group and OPD group were 21.3% and 27.3%, respectively (P > 0.05). The rate of category I-II complications and rate of category III-IV complications did not significantly differ (P > 0.05). Pancreatic fistulae occurred in 6 patients (12.8%) in the LPD group and 8 patients (14.5%) in the OPD group (P = 0.67). Delayed gastric emptying occurred in 2 patients (4.26%) in the LPD group and 2 patients in the OPD group (3.63%; P = 0.79). Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage was not significantly different between the groups (2.13% vs 3.63%; P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

LPD with the uncinate process-first approach combines the benefits of laparoscopy with a low risk of postoperative complications and high rate of curative resection.

Multicenter outcomes of robotic reconstruction during the early learning curve for minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Perceived excess morbidity during the early learning curve of minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has limited widespread adoption. It was hypothesized that robot-assisted reconstruction (RA) after MIPD allows anastomotic outcomes equivalent to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Intent to treat analysis of centrally audited data accrued during early adoption of RA-MIPD at five centers.

RESULTS

CUSUM analysis of operating times at each center identified 92 RA-MIPD during the early learning curve. Mean age was 65 ± 12 years with body mass index 25.8 ± 5.0. Surgical indications included malignant (60%) and premalignant (38%) lesions. Median operating time was 504 min (interquartile range 133) with 242 ml median estimated blood loss (IQR 398) and twelve (13%) conversions to open PD. Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) was 24% with 2 (2.2%) deaths and ten (10.9%) reoperations. Nine (9.9%) clinically significant pancreatic fistulae were observed (4 grade B; 5 grade C). Margin negative resection rate for malignancy was 90% (75% for PDA) with mean harvest of 16 ± 8 lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

These multicenter data during the early learning curve for RA-MIPD do not demonstrate excess anastomotic morbidity compared to open. Further studies are required to determine whether surgeon proficiency and evolving technique improve anastomotic outcomes compared to open.

Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of MIPD versus OPD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Postoperative complications, intraoperative outcomes and oncologic data, and postoperative recovery were compared.

RESULTS

There were 27 studies that matched the selection criteria. Totally 1306 cases of MIPD and 5603 cases of OPD were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in postoperative hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.49; P = .04) and wound infection (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, P < .0001). MIPD was also associated with less estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD] -300.14 mL, 95% CI -400.11 to -200.17 mL, P < .00001), a lower transfusion rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 d, 95% CI -3.91 to -2.00 d, P < .00001) than OPD. Meanwhile, the MIPD group had a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18-1.78, P = .0003) and more lymph nodes harvested (MD 1.34, 95% CI 0.14-2.53, P = .03). However, the minimally invasive approach proved to have much longer operative time (MD 71.00 minutes; 95% CI 27.01-115.00 minutes; P = .002) than OPD. Finally, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .30), delayed gastric emptying (P = .07), bile leakage (P = .98), mortality (P = .88), tumor size (P = .15), vascular resection (P = .68), or reoperation rate (P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible, and worthwhile. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) with extensive follow-up are awaited to further clarify this role.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

Factors associated with prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Complex surgeries such as a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) traditionally have long hospital stays (LOS).

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective PD at our institution from 8/2011-6/2015 were retrospectively examined. Interquartile ranges were calculated from LOS. Patient were compared between the highest quartile and the remainder of the cohort.

RESULTS

492 patients had a median LOS of 9 days, with 106 (22%) admitted for >14 days. Characteristics associated with prolong hospitalization include age (p = 0.004) and preoperative albumin <3.5 (p = 0.007). Significant intra-operative measures associated with prolonged LOS were blood loss (EBL, p = 0.004) and increased operative time (p = 0.008). Any complication extended hospitalizations (p < 0.001). Patients in the top quartile were less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.0001) and more likely to be readmitted (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Older patients with hypoalbuminemia are at higher risk of prolonged LOS following PD as well as high EBL, operative time, and surgical complications. Focused efforts to counsel and optimize patients pre-operatively and minimize intra-operative complications may shorten hospital stays.

Analysis of the Cost Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Hospital cost data, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and readmission costs from periampullary cancer patient cohorts of LPD and OPD were compared. The surgical cohorts over a 40-month period were clinically similar, consisting of 52 and 50 patients in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The total operating room costs were higher in the LPD group as compared to the OPD group (median US$12,290 vs US$11,299; P = 0.05) due to increased costs for laparoscopic equipment and regional nerve blocks (P ≤ 0.0001). Although hospital length of stay was shorter in the LPD group (median 7 vs 8 days; P = 0.025), the average hospital cost was not significantly decreased compared to the OPD group (median $28,496 vs $28,623). Surgery-related readmission rates and associated costs did not differ between groups. Compared to OPD patients, significantly more LPD patients were discharged directly home rather than to other healthcare facilities (88% vs 72%; P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

For the index hospitalization, the cost of LPD is equivalent to OPD. Total episode-of-care costs may favor LPD via reduced post-hospital needs for skilled nursing and rehabilitation.

Pancreatic resection in the era of laparoscopy: State of Art. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding interventions is the pancreatic surgery that is seen as intraoperatively risky and with high postoperative morbi-mortality rate. In order to understand the complexity of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, we performed a systematic review of literature.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of literature was performed regarding laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach in pancreas resections has been extensively reported as safe and feasible regarding pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic enucleation. Compared to open approach, no benefit in morbi-mortality has been demonstrated (except for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy) and no controlled randomized trials have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is not workable in all patients and patient selection is not standardized. Additionally, most optimistic reports considering laparoscopic approach are produced by tertiary centres. Currently, two tasks should be accomplished 1°) standardization of the laparoscopic pancreatic procedures 2°) comparative trials to assess endpoint benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection compared with open procedures.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Cohort and Registry Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to appraise and to evaluate the current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy only in comparative cohort and registry studies.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising, but most data come from single-center, noncomparative series.

METHODS

Comparative cohort and registry studies on MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published before August 23, 2015 were identified systematically and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were mortality and International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

RESULTS

After screening 2293 studies, 19 comparative cohort studies (1833 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 2 original registry studies (19,996 patients) were included. For cohort studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 14. Selection bias was present for cancer diagnosis. No differences were found in mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-1.9] or POPF [(OR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3]. Publication bias was present for POPF. MIPD was associated with prolonged operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 74 minutes, 95% CI = 29-118], but lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -385 mL, 95% CI = -616 to -154), less delayed gastric emptying (OR = 0.6, 95% = CI 0.5-0.8), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3 days, 95% CI = -5 to -2). For registry studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 2.5. Mortality after MIPD was increased in low-volume hospitals (7.5% vs 3.4%; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising in comparative cohort studies, despite the presence of bias, whereas registry studies report higher mortality in low-volume centers. The introduction of MIPD should be closely monitored and probably done only within structured training programs in high-volume centers.

A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy

The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11,854 OPD) were included. MIPD was associated with longer operative times (P < 0.01) and increased mortality (P < 0.01), but decreased estimated blood loss (P < 0.01), decreased delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.01), increased R0 resection rate (P < 0.01), decreased wound infection (P = 0.03) and shorter hospital stays (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in BMI (P = 0.43), tumor size (P = 0.17), lymph nodes harvest (P = 0.57), POPF (P = 0.84), reoperation (P = 0.25) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.82) for MIPD compared with OPD. Although there was an increased operative cost (P < 0.01) for MIPD compared with OPD, the postoperative cost was less (P < 0.01) with the similar total costs (P = 0.28). MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with the potential advantage of being minimally invasive. However, MIPD should be performed in high-volume centers and more randomized-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the appropriate indications of MIPD.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.

Methodology

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken.

Results

Initial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups.

Conclusion

Our review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00423-017-1583-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Robotic vs Open Pancreatoduodenectomy on Incidence of Pancreatic Fistula

Importance

The adoption of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is gaining momentum; however, its impact on major outcomes, including pancreatic fistula, has yet to be adequately compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD).

Objective

To demonstrate that use of RPD does not increase the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) compared with OPD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data were accrued from 2846 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs, n = 2661; RPDs, n = 185), performed by 51 surgeons at 17 institutions worldwide (2003-2015). All RPDs were conducted at a high-volume, academic, pancreatic surgery specialty center-in a standardized fashion-by surgeons who had surpassed the RPD learning curve. Propensity score matching was used to minimize bias from nonrandomized treatment assignment. The RPD and OPD cohorts were matched by propensity scores accounting for factors significantly associated with either undergoing robotic surgery or CR-POPF occurrence on logistic regression analysis. These variables included pancreatic gland texture, pancreatic duct diameter, intraoperative blood loss, pathologic findings of disease, and intraoperative drain placement.

Interventions

Use of RPD or OPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The major outcome of interest was CR-POPF occurrence, which is the most common and morbid complication following pancreatoduodenectomy.

Results

The overall cohort was 51.5% male, with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range, 56-72 years). The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 152 RPDs and 152 OPDs; all covariate imbalances were alleviated. After adjusting for potential confounders, undergoing RPD was associated with a reduced risk for CR-POPF incidence (OR, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.7]; P = .002) relative to OPD. Other predictors of risk-adjusted CR-POPF occurrence included soft pancreatic parenchyma (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 3.4-6.6]; P < .001), pathologic findings of high-risk disease (OR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1-1.9]; P = .01), small pancreatic duct diameter (vs ≥5 mm: 2 mm, OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.4-3.1]; P < .001; ≤1 mm, OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.0-3.0]; P = .03), elevated intraoperative blood loss (vs ≤400 mL: 401-700 mL, OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1-2.0]; P = .01; >1000 mL, OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.4-2.9]; P < .001), omission of intraoperative drain(s) (OR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8]; P = .005), and octreotide prophylaxis (OR, 3.1 [95% CI, 2.3-4.0]; P < .001). Patients undergoing RPD demonstrated similar CR-POPF rates compared with patients in the OPD cohort (6.6% vs 11.2%; P = .23). This relationship held for both grade B (6.6% vs 9.2%; P = .52) and grade C (0% vs 2.0%; P = .25) POPFs. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was also noninferior to OPD in terms of the occurrence of any complication (73.7% vs 66.4%; P = .21), severe complications (Accordion grade ≥3, 23.05% vs 23.7%; P > .99), hospital stay (median: 8 vs 8.5 days; P = .31), 30-day readmission (22.4% vs 21.7%; P > .99), and 90-day mortality (3.3% vs 1.3%; P = .38).

Conclusions and Relevance

To our knowledge, this is the first propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy to date, and it demonstrates that RPD is noninferior to OPD in terms of pancreatic fistula development and other major postoperative outcomes.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction.

RESULTS

From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD.

CONCLUSION

MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.

Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, no study has reported long-term oncologic outcome for patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) compared to open surgery (OPD). The aim of this study is assess long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with adenocarcinoma undergoing LPD versus OPD using propensity score weighting modeling to minimize selection bias.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing PD at Institut Mutualiste Montsouris between January 2000 and April 2010 were included. Propensity scores were calculated using multivariate logistic regression, relating preoperative covariates to surgical approach. Logistic regression was performed, and Cox proportional hazards models for postoperative outcomes were constructed, with and without adjustment for propensity scores weights.

RESULTS

Among 87 patients who underwent PD, 40 underwent LPD and 25 OPD for confirmed adenocarcinoma. Preoperative covariates across both groups were comparable. The median follow-up time was 34.5 months. During follow-up, metastasis was identified in 16 (40%) LPD and 7 (28%) OPD patients. After propensity score adjustment, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.5 versus 29.6 months, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 80.5, 49.2, 39.7% and 77.8, 46.4, 30% in the LP and OPD groups (P = 0.41, 0.42, 0.25), respectively. The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 21.5 versus 13.7 months (LPD vs. OPD), and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 70.9, 33.3, 21.9% and 62.3, 37.9, 25.7% in the LP and OPD groups (P = 0.27, 0.37, 0.39), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the early adoption of LPD, this study is the first to report on long-term oncologic safety of LPD: LPD is non-inferior to OPD with respect to long-term outcomes for patients with adenocarcinoma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Totally laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open surgery for periampullary neoplasms: separate systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of pure (totally) laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) with those of conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Studies comparing TLPD with OPD and RAPD with OPD were included; only original studies reporting more than 10 cases for each technique were included. Studies were combined using a random-effects model to report heterogeneous data, or a fixed-effects model was applied.

RESULTS

TLPD involved longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 116.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54.53-179.17) and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.68 days; 95% CI -4.65 to -2.71). Overall morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula were not significantly different between TLPD and OPD. RAPD was associated with a longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different among the procedure types.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OPD, TLPD and RAPD were feasible and oncologically safe procedures. However, there are no prospective studies, and the majority of the studies on TLPD and RAPD have remained in the early training phase. In addition to randomized controlled trials or prospective studies, new data from the late training phase of learning experiences should also be analyzed.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma provides short-term oncologic outcomes and long-term overall survival rates similar to those for open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The long-term efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) relative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has not been well studied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was used to compare patients undergoing LPD and OPD for stage I-II pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013.

RESULTS

828 (10%) patients underwent LPD and 7385 (90%) OPD. There were no differences in tumor or demographic characteristics between groups. On multivariable analysis adjusted for hospital volume, LPD was associated with a lower rate of readmission (p < 0.01) and trends toward shorter initial length of stay (p = 0.14) and time to adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.11). There were no differences between patients undergoing LPD and those undergoing OP in rates of margin negative resection, number of lymph nodes examined, perioperative mortality and median overall survival (20.7 vs 20.9 months, p = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma, LPD provides short-term oncologic and long-term overall survival outcomes identical to OPD and is associated with decreased rates of readmission and a trend towards accelerated recovery.

Contemporary review of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

AIM

To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

PD remains the only potentially curative treatment for periampullary malignancies, including, most commonly, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimally invasive approaches to this complex operation have begun to be increasingly reported in the literature and are purported by some to reduce the historically high morbidity of PD associated with the open technique. In this systematic review, we have searched the literature for high-quality publications describing minimally invasive techniques for PD-including laparoscopic, robotic, and laparoscopic-assisted robotic approaches (hybrid approach). We have identified publications with the largest operative experiences from well-known centers of excellence for this complex procedure. We report primarily short term operative and perioperative results and some short term oncologic endpoints.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques include laparoscopic, robotic and hybrid approaches and each of these techniques has strong advocates. Consistently, across all minimally invasive modalities, these techniques are associated less intraoperative blood loss than traditional open PD (OPD), but in exchange for longer operating times. These techniques are relatively equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity and short term oncologic outcomes. Importantly, pancreatic fistula rate appears to be comparable in most minimally invasive series compared to open technique. Impact of minimally invasive technique on length of stay is mixed compared to some traditional open series. A few series have suggested that initiation of and time to adjuvant therapy may be improved with minimally invasive techniques, however this assertion remains controversial. In terms of short-terms costs, minimally invasive PD is significantly higher than that of OPD.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approaches to PD show great promise as a strategy to improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PD, but the best results remain isolated to high-volume centers of excellence.