Spleen-Preserving Versus Spleen-Sacrificing Distal Pancreatectomy in Laparoscopy and Open Method-Perioperative Outcome Analysis-14 Years Experience

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: outcomes in a single high-volume institution

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors, and further compare the outcomes between different surgical techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of consecutive patients with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors underwent surgery from February 2014 to February 2019. Patients were grouped and compared according to different surgical operations they accepted.

RESULTS

Totally 164 patients were reviewed and 83 patients underwent laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPPPD), 41 patients underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and 20 patients underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) were included in this study, the rest 20 patients underwent laparoscopic enucleation were excluded. There were 53 male patients and 91 female patients. The median age of these patients was 53.0 years (IQR 39.3-63.0 years). The median BMI was 21.5 kg/m² (IQR 19.7-24.0 kg/m²). The postoperative severe complication was 4.2% and the 90-days mortality was 0. Compare with LCP group, the LPPPD and LSPDP group had longer operation time (300.4 ± 89.7 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P < 0.001) while LSPDP group had shorter operation time (174.8 ± 46.4 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P = 0.027), more blood loss [140.0 (50.0-1000.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0) ml P < 0.001 and 100.0 (20.0-300.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0 ml, P = 0.039, respectively), lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula [3 (3.6%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P < 0.001 and 3 (7.3%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P = 0.006, respectively], lower rate of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage [0 (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%), P = 0.036 and (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%) P = 0.104, respectively] and lower rate of postoperative severe complications [2 (2.4%) vs.4 (20.0%), P = 0.012 and 0 (0%) vs. 4 (20.0%), P = 0.009, respectively], higher proportion of postoperative pancreatin and insulin treatment (pancreatin: 39.8% vs., 15% P = 0.037 and 24.4%vs. 15%, P = 0.390; insulin: 0 vs. 18.1%, P = 0.040 and 0 vs. 12.2%, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, laparoscopic pancreatectomy could be safely performed for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors while the decision to perform laparoscopic central pancreatectomy should be made carefully for fit patients who can sustain a significant postoperative morbidity and could benefit from the excellent long-term results even in a high-volume center.

The use of selective splenic vascular control in laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy

Background

In the process of laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy (LsvSPDP), because the splenic blood vessels have many small branches, how to safely separate the splenic blood vessels from the pancreas has always been the focus and difficulty of this operation. Many cases were switched to laparotomy, or the Warshaw method due to the inability to control bleeding during the separation of the splenic blood vessels. Therefore, we tried to use the selective splenic vascular control method when separating the splenic blood vessels to observe its effect on the conditions of the surgical patients during and after the operation.

Methods

We retrospectively collected 35 cases of LsvSPDP conducted in our center from September 2015 to December 2020, including 5 males and 30 females. Considering the influence of the surgical learning curve, the cases were divided into three groups. Finally, through statistics of its intraoperative and postoperative conditions, the effectiveness of selective splenic vascular control method can be judged.

Results

Patients in Group 2 and 3 showed significantly less blood loss (172.5 and 134.44 mL, respectively) compared to patients in Group 1 (541.43 mL; P=0.01). However, the amount of blood loss was not significantly different between Group 2 and 3.

Conclusions

The amount of bleeding was significantly reduced by splenic blood vessel control technology. And it can improve the success rate of spleen preservation, preserve the success rate of splenic blood vessels, and reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation

BACKGROUND

The studies comparing laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients undergoing LSPDP and LDPS.

METHODS

Between March 2004 and December 2014, patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups as LSPDP and LDPS. Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire).

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients (50 LSPDP and 60 LDPS) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The LSPDP group had a significantly shorter operative time(153.3 ± 46.2 vs. 179.9 ± 54.1 min, p = 0.015) than the LDPS group. Also in analysis of propensity-matched population(LSPDP:LDPS = 35:35, 1:1 matching), LSPDP group still had a significantly shorter operative time (159.3 ± 36.2 vs. 172.9 ± 44.1 min, p = 0.045) than the LDPS group.There were no significant differences with respect to estimated blood loss, first flatus time, diet start time, and postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, pancreatic fistula rates, and mortality, were similar in the LSPDP and LDPS group. On the follow-up survey, the total quality of life score (635.8 ± 50.7 vs. 596.1 ± 92.1)was higher in the LSPDP group compared with the LDPS group. However, the differences were not statistically significant(p > 0.05). The score in vitality (82.5 ± 14.4 vs. 68.9 ± 11.4, p = 0.046) was significantly higher in LSPDP group and not statistically significant in other areas (p > 0.05).Similar results of quality of life assessment were found in analysis of propensity-matched population.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LDPS, LSPDP had shorter operating time and better quality of life with similar morbidity and recovery period.

Laparoscopic Splenic Vessels and Spleen Preservation Distal Pancreatectomy Via Inferior-Posterior Splenic Vein Approach

BACKGROUND

Preservation of splenic vessels can minimize the risks of splenic infarction and gastric varices in laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy. A well-established procedure would provide high splenic vessels and spleen preservation rate. This study evaluated the outcomes and depending factors of laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy (LsvspDP) via inferior-posterior splenic vein approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent LsvspDP via inferior-posterior splenic vein approach in National Cheng-Kung University Hospital from February 2009 to June 2019. The clinic-pathologic data were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was the learning curve based on the cumulative sum analysis. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate the critical factors for the failure of splenic vessels and spleen preservation.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 64 patients received LsvspDP attempt. Splenic vessels were successfully preserved in 49 patients and the overall spleen preservation rate was 76.6%. According to cumulative sum analysis, the learning curve of LsvspDP was the 33rd case and several plateaus were observed during the learning curve phase. Old age (P=0.001), tail location (P=0.038), and large tumor (P=0.01) were independent risk factors of failed splenic vessels preservation, whereas the cut-off point of tumor size for prediction of spleen preservation was 5.4 cm. The complication rates were 7.8%, 7.8%, and 12.5% for Clavien grade I, II, and III, respectively, and 0% for Clavien grade IV or V. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula-grade B was 14.8%, among which the tail location was lower than the nontail location (0% vs. 24.3%; P=0.008). The mean value of operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were 198±67 minutes, 139±242 mL, and 8.5±5.6 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In LsvspDP, the inferior-posterior splenic vein approach resulted in high splenic vessels and spleen preservation rate. Thirty-three patients were required to overcome the learning curve. Old age, tail location, and large tumor size were independent factors for the failure of splenic vessels preservation, whereas the cut-off value for tumor size was 5.4 cm to predict splenic vessels preservation.

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

Background:

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

Aim:

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

Method:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Impact of Spleen Preserving Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Postoperative Infectious Complications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is the standard procedure for body and tail pancreatic tumors. Technical difficulties arising from the strict anatomical relationship between pancreas and splenic vessels generally impose a concomitant splenectomy. Previous retrospective studies have shown a reduced risk of postoperative complications and infections in spleen preserved patients, but this is still a debated issue. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a more robust evidence on the effect of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted. Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I²-index and Cochran Q-test.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies were eligible, and 632 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, 296 (46.8%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (Group S), and 336 (53.2%) patients underwent spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Group SP). In-hospital mortality was 0%. In the group S, the estimated pooled odds ratio of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) and overall complications was 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.28; P = .048) and 2.30 (95% CI: 1.11-4.76; P = .024). The estimated pooled odds ratio of pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, and reoperation was 1.64 (P = .094), 1.01 (P = .987), and 1.24 (P = .776), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce postoperative SSI and overall complications. These results should be interpreted with caution but seem meaningful to establish a better evidence-based treatment for distal pancreatic tumors. Further studies are warranted to analyze the role of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on long-term outcomes.

LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY WITH SPLEEN PRESERVATION

Background:

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

Aim:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Is Central Pancreatectomy Truly Recommendable? A 9-Year Single-Center Experience

AIMS

To compare the short- and long-term outcomes in patients with pancreatic benign or borderline neoplasm who underwent central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) single benign or low-grade malignant tumor; (2) tumor confined to the pancreatic neck or proximal body; and (3) tumor amenable to either CP or DP. Short and long-term outcomes, including complications, pancreatic exocrine and endocrine function, and quality of life (QoL) were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients who underwent CP and 26 patients who underwent DP were included. The median follow-up period was 53 months (range 21-117 months). Patients undergoing CP were significantly more likely to experience complications (68.7 vs. 23%, p = 0.003) especially grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (62.5 vs. 23%, p = 0.011) than those undergoing DP. During the long-term follow-up, 2 patients in the DP group developed new-onset diabetes mellitus, but no patient in CP group developed this condition (8 vs. 0%, p = 0.382). Evidence of exocrine insufficiency, including severe diarrhea or steatorrhea, was not observed in either group. Both groups were equally satisfied with the overall health status and overall QoL.

CONCLUSION

CP is associated with excellent pancreatic function but a significantly increased postoperative morbidity and risk compared to DP. Therefore, the indication of CP should be chosen strictly.