Independent Predictors of Increased Operative Time and Hospital Length of Stay Are Consistent Across Different Surgical Approaches to Pancreatoduodenectomy

Open vs robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted vs open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening identified 16 studies that were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI, 0.805-1.096; P = .42), mortality (95% CI, 0.599-1.123; P = .21), and readmission (95% CI, 0.959-1.211; P = .20) among patients undergoing open vs robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI, 1.020-1.233) and higher costs (95% CI, 0.134-1.139; P = .013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI, -0.353 to 0.189; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

The optimal choice for patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in improving perioperative aspects and postoperative complications in patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database systems for studies that compared RPD with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Meta-analysis was performed for 24 relevant outcomes, including perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications. Subsequently, a subgroup analysis based on geographical regions was conducted to investigate the impact of regional differences on the perioperative outcomes of the RPD group and the LPD group.

RESULTS

This review found 19 studies with 12,731 individuals (3539 RPD and 9192 LPD). In comparison to LPD, RPD had lower rates of Conversion (OR = 0.58, P < 0.00001), Blood Transfusion (OR = 0.59, P = 0.02), Length of Stay (MD = - 0.54, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [Pneumonia (OR = 0.31, P < 0.0001), and Wound Disruption (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0007)], and more thorough lymph node harvesting (MD = 1.25, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that Blood Transfusion (I2 = 55%, P = 0.02), Conversion (I2 = 30%, P < 0.00001), Length of Stay (I2 = 71%, P = 0.01), and Lymph Node Harvested (I2 = 87%, P = 0.001) were statistically significant. Interestingly, compared to China, other countries had lower rates of Conversion and more lymph nodes harvested for RPD surgery.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of RPD surgery over LPD surgery in terms of therapy and an optimistic short-term prognosis are clearly supported by this study. Moreover, subgroup analysis based on regional differences revealed statistically significant results for Conversion, Length of Stay (days), Number of Lymph Nodes Harvested and the rate of Blood Transfusion, indicating significant variability across regions. This study provides a solid theoretical foundation and basis for the advancement of RPD in clinical practice.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism when compared to the open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), the association between surgical approach and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is still unknown. This study aims to compare VTE rates following open (OPD) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

METHOD

MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Studies were considered suitable if the incidence of postoperative VTE in open and minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) pancreatic surgery was reported. The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five studies including 12 984 patients met the inclusion criteria and were considered for meta-analysis. A total of 11 060 patients underwent OPD and 1924 MIPD. Overall, patients who underwent OPD had a lower rate of VTE compared to MIPD (3.6 % vs 4.6 %, OR (95 % CI) = 0.66 (0.52-0.85), p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed similar results for pulmonary embolism (PE) (1.1 % in OPD vs 1.9 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.54 (0.36-0.80), p 0.002) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1.3 % in OPD vs 3.1 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.48 (0.29-0.79), p 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy have a higher incidence of postoperative VTE when compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III).

RESULTS

Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta-analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical-site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).

RESULTS

Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² for males and ≥30 kg/m² for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.

CONCLUSION

The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

RESULTS

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Can we predict the need for nutritional support following pancreatoduodenectomy?

BACKGROUND

The practice of routine placement of a tube jejunostomy at the time of pancreatoduodenectomy has given way to a more selective approach. However, the indications of establishing enteral access at the time of surgery remain poorly defined. This study aimed to assess the preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with the need for nutritional support after pancreatoduodenectomy, to guide decision-making for the establishment of intraoperative feeding access.

METHODS

Retrospective study, analyzing the data of 562 consecutive patients, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy between March 2013 to December 2020. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis was carried out to ascertain the factors associated with the initiation of and need for nutritional support for more than 7 days postop. The utility of tube jejunostomy was studied in patients in whom it was performed.

RESULTS

Of 562 patients, 105 (18.7%) needed nutritional support. A tube jejunostomy was performed in 46 (8.2%) patients, parenteral nutrition was used in 83 (14.8%), and nasojejunal tube placed in 28 (4.9%) patients. On logistic regression analysis, age, serum albumin <3.0 gm/dl and operative blood loss were independently associated with the initiation of supportive nutrition, while preoperative gastric outlet obstruction (OR 3.105, 95% CI1.201-8.032, p = 0.019) and serum albumin <3.0 gm/dl (OR 2.669, 95% CI 1.131-6.300, p = 0.025) were associated with the need for prolonged nutritional support. The maximal benefit of tube jejunostomy was in patients with mental health disorders (83.3%).

CONCLUSION

Tube jejunostomy for nutritional support after pancreatoduodenectomy can be considered in patients with preoperative gastric outlet obstruction, serum albumin <3.0 gm/dl and mental health disorders.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Highs and lows in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is not widely accepted, and its use is controversial. Only correct patient selection and appropriate training of groups experienced in pancreatic surgery and laparoscopy will be able to establish its role and its hypothetical advantages.

METHODS

Out of 138 pancreatic surgeries performed in a two-year period (2017-2019), 23 were laparoscopic PD. We evaluate its efficacy and safety compared to 31 open PD.

RESULTS

There were no cases of B/C pancreatic or biliary fistula, nor any cases of delayed gastric emptying in the laparoscopic group, but hemorrhage required one reoperation. The conversion rate was 21% (five cases): one due to bleeding, and the remainder for non-progression. The converted patients showed no differences compared to those completed by laparoscopy. There were no differences between laparoscopic and open PD in surgical time, postoperative complications, reintervention rate, readmissions or mortality. R0 resection in tumor cases was 85% for laparoscopy and 69% in open surgery without statistical significance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic PD group (eight vs. 15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected group, laparoscopic PD can be safely and effectively performed if carried out by groups who are experts in pancreatic surgery and advanced laparoscopy. The technique has the same postoperative results as open surgery and is oncologically adequate, with less hospital stay. Proper patient selection, a step-by-step program and a lax and early conversion prevents serious operating accidents.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

Preoperative Nomogram Predicts Non-home Discharge in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, non-home discharge is common and often results in an unnecessary delay in hospital discharge. This study aimed to develop and validate a preoperative prediction model to identify patients with a high likelihood of non-home discharge following pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy from 2013 to 2018 were identified using an institutional database. Patients were categorized according to discharge location (home vs. non-home). Preoperative risk factors, including social determinants of health associated with non-home discharge, were identified using Pearson's chi-squared test and then included in a multiple logistic regression model. A training cohort composed of 80% of the sampled patients was used to create the prediction model, and validation carried out using the remaining 20%. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Seven hundred sixty-six pancreatoduodenectomy patients met the study criteria for inclusion in the analysis (non-home, 126; home, 640). Independent predictors of non-home discharge on multivariable analysis were age, marital status, mental health diagnosis, functional health status, dyspnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The prediction model was then used to generate a nomogram to predict likelihood of non-home discharge. The training and validation cohorts demonstrated comparable performances with an identical area under the curve (0.81) and an accuracy of 84%.

CONCLUSION

A prediction model to reliably assess the likelihood of non-home discharge after pancreatoduodenectomy was developed and validated in the present study.

Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I₂ test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only.

RESULTS

The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I₂ = 12, χ² = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.50, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival after MIPD is non-inferior to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.

Early Prediction of Length of Stay After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based clinical pathway designed to standardize and optimize care. We studied the impact of ERAS and sought to identify the most important recommendations to predict shorter length of stay (LOS) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing PD at our institution between January 2014 and June 2018. We compared clinicopathologic outcomes for patients before and after ERAS implementation. We defined "A-recommendations" as those that were graded "strong" and had "moderate" or "high" levels of evidence. We then compared outcomes of the ERAS group with adherence to "A-recommendations" and performed a subset analysis of "A-recommendations" over the first 72 h after surgery, which we termed "early factors".

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients underwent PD during the study period. We excluded 87 patients who had minimally invasive PD (22), vascular reconstruction (53), or both (12). Of the 104 patients studied, 56 (54%) were pre-ERAS and 48 (46%) were ERAS. There were no differences in comorbidities or demographics between these groups, and morbidity, mortality, and readmission rates were also similar (P > 0.6). Median LOS was 3.5 d shorter in the ERAS group (7 versus 10.5 d, P < 0.001). Adherence to "A-recommendations" within ERAS was associated with a decreased LOS (r = -0.52 P = 0.0001). Patients with >5 "early factors" had a median LOS of 6 d, whereas patients with <5 "early factors" had a median LOS of 9 d (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS is an effective protocol that standardizes care and reduces LOS after PD. Implementation of ERAS resulted in a 3.5-day reduction in our LOS with no change in morbidity, mortality, or readmissions. Adherence to ERAS protocol "A-recommendations" and ≥5 "early factors" may be predictive of shortened LOS.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

Highs and lows in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is not widely accepted, and its use is controversial. Only correct patient selection and appropriate training of groups experienced in pancreatic surgery and laparoscopy will be able to establish its role and its hypothetical advantages METHODS: Out of 138 pancreatic surgeries performed in a two-year period (2017-2019), 23 were laparoscopic PD. We evaluate its efficacy and safety compared to 31 open PD.

RESULTS

There were no cases of B/C pancreatic or biliary fistula, nor any cases of delayed gastric emptying in the laparoscopic group, but hemorrhage required one reoperation. The conversion rate was 21% (five cases): one due to bleeding, and the remainder for non-progression. The converted patients showed no differences compared to those completed by laparoscopy. There were no differences between laparoscopic and open PD in surgical time, postoperative complications, reintervention rate, readmissions or mortality. R0 resection in tumor cases was 85% for laparoscopy and 69% in open surgery without statistical significance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic PD group (eight vs. 15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected group, laparoscopic PD can be safely and effectively performed if carried out by groups who are experts in pancreatic surgery and advanced laparoscopy. The technique has the same postoperative results as open surgery and is oncologically adequate, with less hospital stay. Proper patient selection, a step-by-step program and a lax and early conversion prevents serious operating accidents.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Surgical Outcomes After Pancreatic Resection of Screening-Detected Lesions in Individuals at High Risk for Developing Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening high-risk individuals (HRI) can detect potentially curable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its precursors. We describe the outcomes of high-risk individuals (HRI) after pancreatic resection of screen-detected neoplasms.

METHODS

Asymptomatic HRI enrolled in the prospective Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) studies from 1998 to 2014 based on family history or germline mutations undergoing surveillance for at least 6 months were included. Pathologic diagnoses, hospital length of stay, incidence of diabetes mellitus, operative morbidity, need for repeat operation, and disease-specific mortality were determined.

RESULTS

Among 354 HRI, 48 (13.6%) had 57 operations (distal pancreatectomy (31), Whipple (20), and total pancreatectomy (6)) for suspected pancreatic neoplasms presenting as a solid mass (22), cystic lesion(s) (25), or duct stricture (1). The median length of stay was 7 days (IQR 5-11). Nine of the 42 HRI underwent completion pancreatectomy for a new lesion after a median of 3.8 years (IQR 2.5-7.6). Postoperative complications developed in 17 HRI (35%); there were no perioperative deaths. New-onset diabetes mellitus after partial resection developed in 20% of HRI. Fourteen PDACs were diagnosed, 11 were screen-detected, 10 were resectable, and 9 had an R0 resection. Metachronous PDAC developed in remnant pancreata of 2 HRI. PDAC-related mortality was 4/10 (40%), with 90% 1-year survival and 60% 5-year survival, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening HRI can detect PDAC with a high resectability rate. Surgical treatment is associated with a relatively short length of stay and low readmission rate, acceptable morbidity, zero 90-day mortality, and significant long-term survival.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT2000089.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical Factors Associated with Longer Hospital Stay Following Ovarian Cancer Surgery

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancy and is treated with a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Extended length of stay (LOS) after surgery can affect patient morbidity, overall costs, and hospital resource utilization. The primary objective of this study was to identify factors contributing to prolonged LOS for women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried to identify women from 2012-2016 who underwent hysterectomy for ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer. The primary outcome was LOS >50th percentile. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were examined to determine which were associated with prolonged LOS. Results: From 2012-2016, 1771 women underwent elective abdominal surgery for OC and were entered in the ACS-NSQIP database. The mean and median LOS was 4.6 and 4.0 days (IQR 0-38), respectively. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with prolonged LOS included: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification III (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38-2.13) or IV (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.44-2.46), presence of ascites (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.44-2.46), older age (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13-1.35), platelet count >400,000/mm3 (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.35), preoperative blood transfusion (aOR 11.00, 95% CI 1.28-94.77), disseminated cancer (aOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), increased length of operation (121-180 min, aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.91; >180 min, aOR 2.78, 95% CI 2.13-3.64), and postoperative blood transfusion within 72 h of incision (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.59-2.62) (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Longer length of hospital stay following surgery for OC is associated with many patient, disease, and treatment-related factors. The extent of surgery, as evidenced by perioperative blood transfusion and length of surgical procedure, is a factor that can potentially be modified to shorten LOS, improve patient outcomes, and reduce hospital costs.