Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Exploring the landscape of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: Progress, challenges, and future directions

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas’s unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.

Results

Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, p = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, p = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, p = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.

Conclusion

This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Operative Time, Oncological Outcomes, Bleeding, Morbidity, and Mortality

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

Minimally invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an entropy balancing analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS) remain to be established in pancreatic cancer (PDAC) METHODS: Eighty-five open (O)-RAMPS were compared to 93 MI-RAMPS. The entropy balance matching approach was used to compare the two cohorts, eliminating the selection bias. Three models were created. Model 1 made O-RAMPS equal to the MI-RAMPS cohort (i.e., compared the two procedures for resectable PDAC); model 2 made MI-RAMPS equal to O-RAMPS (i.e., compared the two procedures for borderline-resectable PDAC); model 3, compared robotic and laparoscopic RAMPS.

RESULTS

O-RAMPS and MI-RAMPS showed "non-small" differences for BMI, comorbidity, back pain, tumor size, vascular resection, anterior or posterior RAMPS, multi-visceral resection, stump management, grading, and neoadjuvant therapy. Before reweighting, O-RAMPS had fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (CR-POPF) (20.0% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.003), while MI-RAMPS had a higher mean of lymph nodes (25.7 vs. 31.7; p = 0.011). In model 1, MI-RAMPS and O-RAMPS achieved similar results. In model 2, O-RAMPS was associated with lower comprehensive complication index scores (MD = 11.2; p = 0.038), and CR-POPF rates (OR = 0.2; p = 0.001). In model 3, robotic-RAMPS had a higher probability of negative resection margins.

CONCLUSION

In patients with anatomically resectable PDAC, MI-RAMPS is feasible and as safe as O-RAMPS.

Comparison of Educational and Academic Quality of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Videos on WebSurg® and YouTube® Platforms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the educational and academic quality of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) videos on YouTube® and WebSurg® platforms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

YouTube and WebSurg platforms were searched with the keyword "laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy". According to the exclusion criteria, 12 videos were found on WebSurg. To ensure a 1:1 ratio, the first 12 videos that met the criteria on YouTube were also analyzed. Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria were used to evaluate the reliability of the videos. The non-educational quality of the videos was calculated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the educational and academic quality of videos was calculated using Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy-specific score (LDP-SS) and Laparoscopic Surgery Video Educational Guidelines scoring system (LAP-VEGaS).

RESULTS

The mean JAMA score was 1.58 on YouTube and 2.83 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median GQS was 2 on YouTube and 5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LAP-VEGaS score was 8 on YouTube and 14.5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LDP-SS score was 6 on YouTube and 9.5 on WebSurg (P = .001). According to the LAP-VEGaS, eleven (91.7%) of the WebSurg videos had a high score of 11 or more (P = .04). According to Spearman correlation analysis, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between LDP-SS and JAMA, GQS and LAP-VEGaS (r: .589, P = .002; r: .648, P = .001; r: .848, P < .001 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The WebSurg is superior to the YouTube in terms of educational and academic value, quality, accuracy, reliability and usability in scientific meetings for LDP videos.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the 2020s: Recent Institutional Experience and a Narrative Review of Current Evidence

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit's data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit's data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Bacterial lysates (OM-85 BV): a cost-effective proposal in order to contrast antibiotic resistance

Background

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is one of the most frequent pathologies in which antibiotics are used because 50% of the exacerbations are attributable to a bacterial infection. The aims of our study were: i) to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of the bacterial lysate OM-85 BV in preventing acute exacerbations in patients with COPD; ii) to evaluate whether this preventive treatment can lead to significant savings for the National Health Service (NHS).

Methods

A systematic research was conducted in the electronic database MEDLINE (PubMed) in June 2017-July 2020, collecting evidences without time restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The keywords used were “OM 85 BV AND chronic bronchitis” and “OM 85 BV AND COPD”. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed considering the costs for a treatment with OM-8BV, the costs for the treatment of an acute exacerbation and the number of prevented exacerbations.

Results

59 publications were found, but the meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria. OM-85 BV is responsible of a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of COPD exacerbations (p < 0.01; WMD = -0.86; CI 95%: -1.38, -0.34) and in the days of antibiotic therapy (p < 0.01; WMD = -9.49; CI 95%: -11.93, -7.05). The cost-effectiveness ratio with a negative value is in favor to treatment.

Conclusions

OM-85 BV is effective in reducing exacerbations, and could lead to significant savings for the NHS. Moreover, reducing the number of exacerbations it could avoid an over-use of antibiotics and the consequent antibiotic resistance.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis

The laparoscopic approach is considered as standard practice in patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms. However, only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching (PSM) studies have been performed. Thus, additional studies are needed to obtain more robust evidence. This is a single-centre propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent laparoscopic (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) with splenectomy for pancreatic neoplasms. Demographic, intra, postoperative and oncological data were collected. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the operative findings, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes (only in the subset of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-PDAC) and total costs. In total, 205 patients were analysed: 105 (51.2%) undergoing an open approach and 100 (48.8%) a laparoscopic approach. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 75 patients were analysed and showed a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.001), a lower blood loss (P = 0.032), a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) and decreased total costs (P = 0.050) after LDP with respect to ODP. Regarding the subset of patients with PDAC, 22 patients were analysed: they showed a significant shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.050) and a reduction in postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) after LDP with respect to ODP. Oncological outcomes were similar. LDP showed lower hospital stay and postoperative morbidity rate than ODP both in the entire population and in patients affected by PDAC. Total costs were reduced only in the entire population. Oncological outcomes were comparable in PDAC patients.

Adjuvant Treatment in Pancreatic Cancer: Shaping the Future of the Curative Setting

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease even in the early stages, despite progresses in surgical and pharmacological treatment in recent years. High potential for metastases is the main cause of therapeutic failure in localized disease, highlighting the current limited knowledge of underlying pathological processes. However, nowadays research is focusing on the search for personalized approaches also in the adjuvant setting for PDAC, by implementing the use of biomarkers and investigating new therapeutic targets. In this context, the aim of this narrative review is to summarize the current treatment scenario and new potential therapeutic approaches in early stage PDAC, from both a preclinical and clinical point of view. Additionally, the review examines the role of target therapies in localized PDAC and the influence of neoadjuvant treatments on survival outcomes.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

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.

Surgical approaches for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Preoperative predictive factors of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy difficulty

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a challenging operation due to technical complexity and tumor-related factors. Aim of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors affecting LDP difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LDP between 2015 and 2018 at San Raffaele Hospital and Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital were enrolled retrospectively. Three variables were used to define surgical difficulty: conversion to open, duration of surgery >3rd quartile and intraoperative blood loss >3rd quartile. The presence of ≥1 of these 3 variables was considered as another measure of difficulty.

RESULTS

Overall, 191 patients were included. Conversion to open was required in 25 patients (13%). At multiple regression analysis, tumor proximity to major vessels was the only independent predictor of conversion from laparoscopic to open (p < 0.001). No variables independently predicted an excessive duration of surgery. Male gender (p = 0.033) and increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.018) were independent predictors of excessive blood loss. Increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.014) and tumor proximity to major vessels (p = 0.002) were significant risk factors for the presence of ≥1 outcome of surgical difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Male gender, increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line and tumor proximity to major vessels represent preoperative risk factors of LDP difficulty.

Laparoscopic repeated pancreatectomy for isolated local recurrence in remnant pancreas following laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Two cases report

Typical treatment for recurrent pancreatic cancer is potent chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. However, recent clinical investigations suggest a potential therapeutic role of local resection in recurrent pancreatic cancer. Based on accumulating surgical experience of minimally invasive pancreatectomy, we report cases of two patients who underwent successful laparoscopic re-resection of isolated local recurrence following laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.

A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns regarding adequate oncological outcomes and perioperative complications, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has limited generalizability. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for resectable PDAC after propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The patients who underwent MIDP and ODP for PDAC between January 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival data were collected to compare MIDP and ODP. After PSM, perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 MIDP patients were compared with 156 ODP patients for resectable PDAC after PSM. Tumor size, TNM stage, differentiation, harvested lymph nodes, and positive lymph nodes were not different except for R1 resection and lymphovascular invasion between the MIDP and ODP groups. Operation times, overall complications, POPF, and adjuvant treatment were also not different between the two groups. The MIDP group had shorter hospital stays (10.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001) and shorter interval times from surgery to adjuvant treatment (37.6 days vs 46.0 days, P = 0.002) than the ODP group. The MIDP group had better overall survival (34.9 vs 24.5 months, P = 0.012) and disease-free survival (16.2 vs 10.3 months, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has advantages with respect to postoperative hospital stay, interval between surgery, and adjuvant treatment. MIDP is associated with the possibility of improved survival rate for resectable PDAC.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III).

RESULTS

218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III.

CONCLUSION

LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

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.

Predictive Factors Associated with Complications after Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Although laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become more popular, the postoperative complication rate remains high. We sought to identify the risk factors for post-LDP complications. We examined 1227 patients who underwent LDP between March 2005 and December 2015 at a single large-volume center. We used logistic regression for the analysis. The overall (13.2%) and major (3.3%) complication rates were determined. Postoperative pancreatic fistula was the most frequent complication, and 58 patients (4.7%) had clinically significant (grade B) pancreatic fistulas. No 90-day mortality was recorded. Long operative time (≥200 min), large estimated blood loss (≥320 mL), LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon (<50 cases), and concomitant splenectomy were identified as risk factors for overall complications using a logistic regression model. For major complications, male sex (p = 0.020), long operative time (p = 0.005), and LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon (p = 0.026) were significant predictive factors. Using logistic regression analysis, surgery-related factors, including long operative time and LDP performed by an inexperienced surgeon, were correlated with overall and major complications of LDP. As LDP is a technically challenging procedure, surgery-related variables emerged as the main risk factors for postoperative complications. Appropriate patient selection and sufficient surgeon experience may be essential to reduce the complications of LDP.

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

Background

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

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.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign, pre-malignant, and low grade malignant pancreatic tumors

Backgrounds/Aims

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in benign disease is is safer and more favorable to patients than open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 150 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n=69) or open (=81) distal pancreatectomy at a double institutes from 2008 to 2018. We reviewed each patient's history for age, sex, pathologic diagnosis. Specific outcomes that were included hospital stay, operative time (in minutes), operative blood loss (in milliliters), 30-daymajormorbidity and mortality (Clavian-Dindo classification), pancreatic leak rate (grade of leak A, B, or C), pancreatic hemorrhage.

Results

From 2008 to 2018, there were 150 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy for benign pancreatic disease. 81 patients underwent open and 69 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) Intra-operative estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LDP group than in the OPD group (200 vs. 400 ml p<0.01). There was no difference in blood transfusion between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the resection method between the two groups (p<0.01) and there was a significant difference in the use of mesh for prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (53 vs. 34 p<0.01). There was no significant difference in incidence of POPF (15.9% in LDP vs 7.4% in ODP, p=0.235) between the two groups, morbidity rate between the two groups (18 vs. 30 p=0.152), post - pancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection, hospital stay and readmission.

Conclusions

LDP showed there was no difference in the occurrence of POPF, complication and hospital stay. In contrast, intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the LDP group than in the ODP group, and LDP was also significantly better in the view point of the feeding advance. In other words, LDP is safer and more favorable to patients than ODP.

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.

Robotic-assisted versus open left pancreatectomy for cystic tumours: A single-centre experience

Background:

Cystic pancreatic lesions (CPLs) are being identified increasingly, and some benefit from surgical treatment. With the increasing use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for neoplasms of the pancreas, the aim of the present comparative study is to establish whether the RAS offered any advantages over conventional open surgery (OS) in the management of CPLs.

Patients and Methods:

Twenty-seven out of 37 robot-assisted left-sided pancreatectomy (LSP) performed between January 2010 and April 2017 were carried out for CPLs. The surgical outcome and histopathology were compared retrospectively with a control group of 27 patients who had undergone open LSP for CPLs, selected using a one-to-one case-matched methodology (OS-Group) from the prospectively collected institutional database.

Results:

The spleen was preserved in a significantly higher percentage of patients in the RAS-group (63% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.05). There was no difference in the post-operative course (pancreatic fistula and morbidity) between the two groups. The median post-operative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAS-group: 8 days (range 3–25) versus 12 days (range 7–26) in the OS-group (P < 0.01). No conversion to open approach was reported in the RAS-group.

Conclusions:

Robotically assisted LSP is a safe and effective procedure. It is accompanied by a significantly higher spleen preservation rate compared to the open approach. In addition, because of the reduced trauma, RAS incurred a shorter post-operative hospital stay and faster return to full recovery, particularly important in patients undergoing surgery for relative indications. However, these benefits of RAS for LSP require confirmation by prospective randomised controlled studies.

Extremely high white blood cell counts on postoperative day 1 do not predict severe complications following distal pancreatectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Distal pancreatectomy(DP) is associated with high morbidity. In clinical practice, postoperative white blood cell(WBC) counts are useful indicators of infection complications. The aim of this study was to determine the relevance of extremely high postoperative day (POD)1 WBC counts after DP and their relationship to perioperative outcomes.

Methods

From December 2005 to December 2016, data from patients who had open or minimally invasive DP surgery (robot or laparoscopy, MIS) for benign or borderline malignant tumors were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into groups based on POD1 WBC count (>20K, High and <20K, Low) for comparisons.

Results

Twelve patients (4.6%) were categorized into the High group. There were significant differences in age (p=0.019), BMI (p=0.010), and spleen-preserving rate (p=0.002) between the High and Low groups. In binary logistic regression analysis, the risk factors for severe complication was age (p=0.032) and open DP (p=0.005), not POD1 WBC count.

Conclusions

Extremely high WBC count after POD1 after DP was not associated with severe complications, but was associated with splenectomy. Surgical methods and age were associated with severe complications.

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 Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

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

Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases

Background

Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines.

Methods

Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision.

Results

Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250-1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6-36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusion

Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Cost of open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: surgeon perceptions versus the reality of hospital spending

BACKGROUND

Rising health care costs have led to increasing focus on cost containment and accountability from health care providers. We sought to explore surgeon awareness of supply costs for open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

Surveys were sent in 2015 to surgeons at 8 academic hospitals in Toronto who performed distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Respondents were asked to estimate the total cost, type and number of disposable equipment pieces required to perform open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We determined the accuracy of estimates through comparisons with procedural invoices for distal gastrectomy performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2015. All values are in 2015 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Of the 53 surveys sent out, 12 were completed (response rate 23%). Surgeon estimates of total supply costs ranged from $500 to $3000 and from $1500 to $5000 for open and laparoscopic cases, respectively. Estimated supply costs for requested equipment ranged from $464 to $2055 for open cases and from $1870 to $2960 for laparoscopic cases. Invoices for actual equipment yielded a mean of $821 (standard deviation $543) (range $89-$2613) for open cases and $2678 (standard deviation $958) (range $835-$4102) for laparoscopic cases. Estimates of total cost were within 25% of the median invoice total in 1 response (9%) for open cases and 3 (27%) of those for laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSION

Respondents failed to accurately estimate equipment costs. The variation in true total costs and estimates of supply costs represents an opportunity for intraoperative cost minimization, efficient equipment selection and value-based purchasing arrangements.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using EMBASE, Medline, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models. A cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track the accumulation of evidence. The power that a new trial of specified samples would give to the present meta-analysis was estimated with simulation-based sample size calculation.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had significantly smaller tumours [mean difference (MD) = -0.49 (-0.83 to -0.14), p = 0.005], less estimated blood loss [MD = -157.27 (-281.63 to -32.91), p = 0.01], and shorter average hospital stay by two days [MD = -2.35 (-3.1 to -1.59), p < .001] than those who underwent ODP. No significant differences in feasibility, effectiveness, and safety were noted. Cumulative meta-analysis demonstrated that the results were not dominated by a particular study. A new trial with 350 patients in each arm will give a maximum power of 48% to the present meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma provides similar clinical and oncologic outcomes with shorter hospital stay by two days compared to ODP. However, underpowered sample size and smaller tumour size may have influenced the results of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, an adequately powered randomized controlled trial is needed to shed further light on the appropriateness of this approach.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Distal pancreatectomy is well suited to the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides the same postoperative recovery advantages reputed to minimal access surgery. However, there have been fears as to the safety of LDP in terms of life-threatening intra-operative events and post-operative complications, adequate carcinological outcomes as compared to traditional (open) distal pancreatectomy (ODP) when performed for cancer, as well as to whether the laparoscopic approach is well adapted to the variety of diseases that may affect the pancreas (ranging from trauma to benign or malignant disease) and whether the minimal access approach is well adapted to perform pancreatic surgery safely in the obese, the elderly or the frail. In this review of the literature, we sought to determine whether LDP was as safe, provided the same oncological outcomes and was applicable to all diseases involving the body and tail of the pancreas, and to particular patient characteristics, compared to the traditional open approach. Last we looked at cost issues. We concluded that this review of the literature allowed to state that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe for a wide range of diseases, both benign and malignant. Morbidity, mortality, and probably, also, carcinological outcomes are comparable to open surgery. The overall costs are similar but the advantages of minimal access surgery make it the preferred approach, once the surgical expertise is acquired and present.

Expanding laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy: major findings based on systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.

Pancreatic stump closure techniques and pancreatic fistula formation after distal pancreatectomy: Meta-analysis and single-center experience

Background

Pancreatic fistula/PF is the most frequent and feared complication after distal pancreatectomy/DP. However, the safest technique of pancreatic stump closure remains an ongoing debate. Here, we aimed to compare the safety of different pancreatic stump closure techniques for preventing PF during DP.

Methods

We performed a PRISMA-based meta-analysis of all relevant studies that compared at least two techniques of stump closure during DP with regard to PF rates/PFR. We further performed a retrospective analysis of our institutional PFR in correlation with stump closure techniques.

Results

8301 studies were initially identified. From these, ten randomized controlled trials/RCTs, eleven prospective and 59 retrospective studies were eligible. Stapler closure (26%vs.31%, OR:0.73, p = 0.02), combination of stapler and suture (30%vs.33%, OR:0.70, p = 0.05), or stump anastomosis (14%vs.28%, OR:0.51, p = 0.02) were associated with lower PFR than suture closure alone. Spleen preservation/splenectomy, or laparoscopic/open DP, TachoSil^®, fibrin-like glue-application, or bioabsorbable-stapler-reinforcements (Seamguard^®) did not influence PFR after DP. In contrast, autologous patches (falciform ligament/seromuscular patches) resulted in lower PFR than no patch application (21.9%vs.25,8%, OR:0.60, p = 0.006). In our institution, the major three techniques of stump closure resulted in comparable PFR (suture:27%, stapler:29%, or combination:24%). However, selective suturing/clipping of the main pancreatic duct during pancreatic stump closure prevented severe PF (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

After DP, stapler closure, pancreatic anastomosis, or falciform/seromuscular patches lead to lower PFR than suture closure alone. However, the differences are rather small, and further RCTs are needed to test these effects. Selective closure of the main pancreatic duct during stump closure may prevent severe PF.

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.