Laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study in elderly people

Analysis of factors influencing pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and establishment of a new prediction model for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most prevalent complications following minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). Only one model related to MIPD exists, and previous POPF scoring prediction methods are based on open pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Our objectives are to determine the variables that may increase the probability of pancreatic fistula following MIPD and to develop and validate a POPF predictive risk model.

METHODS

Data from 432 patients who underwent MIPD between July 2015 and May 2022 were retrospectively collected. A nomogram prediction model was created using multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate independent factors for POPF in patients undergoing MIPD in the modeling cohort. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and the calibration curve were used to verify the nomogram prediction model internally and externally within the modeling cohort and the verification cohort.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI), albumin, triglycerides, pancreatic duct diameter, pathological diagnosis and intraoperative bleeding were independent variables for POPF. On the basis of this information, a model for the prediction of risks associated with POPF was developed. In accordance with the ROC analysis, the modeling cohort's AUC was 0.819 (95% CI 0.747-0.891), the internal validation cohort's AUC was 0.830 (95% CI 0.747-0.912), and the external validation cohort's AUC was 0.793 (95% CI 0.671-0.915). Based on the calibration curve, the estimated values of POPF have a high degree of concordance with the actual values that were measured.

CONCLUSIONS

This model for predicting the probability of pancreatic fistula following MIPD has strong predictive capacity and can provide a trustworthy predictive method for the early screening of high-risk patients with pancreatic fistula after MIPD and timely clinical intervention.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly versus Younger Patients: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: With ageing, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) for benign or malignant disease is expected to increase in elderly patients. However, whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) should be performed in the elderly is not clear yet and it is still debated. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including seven published articles comparing the technical and post-operative outcomes of MIPD in elderly versus younger patients up to December 2022. (3) Results: In total, 1378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In term of overall and Clavien-Dindo I/II complication rates, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade > A rates and biliary leakage, abdominal collection, post-operative bleeding and delayed gastric emptying rates, no differences emerged between the two groups. However, this study showed slightly higher intraoperative blood loss [MD 43.41, (95%CI 14.45, 72.38) p = 0.003], Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication rates [OR 1.87, (95%CI 1.13, 3.11) p = 0.02] and mortality rates [OR 2.61, (95%CI 1.20, 5.68) p = 0.02] in the elderly compared with the younger group. Interestingly, as a minor endpoint, no differences in terms of the mean number of harvested lymphnode and of R0 resection rates were found. (4) Conclusion: MIPD seems to be relatively safe; however, there are slightly higher major morbidity, lung complication and mortality rates in elderly patients, who potentially represent the individuals that may benefit the most from the minimally invasive approach.

Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection

BACKGROUND

The procedure of total duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHRt) has been reported frequently, but rare in minimally invasive procedure, especially robotic-assisted operation. Here we share our experience and analyze the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DPPHRt in the treatment of benign lesions or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic head in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From October 2016 to January 2022, three patients received robot-assisted DPPHRt(RA-DPPHRt), and seventeen patients received laparoscopic DPPHRt(LDPPHRt). Data were retrospectively collected in terms of demographic characteristics (age, gender, body mass index, and pathological diagnosis), intraoperative variables (operative time, estimated blood loss), and post-operative variables (post-operative hospital stay, and complications).

RESULTS

All 20 patients received minimally invasive total duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection successfully without conversion, including 8 males and 12 females. Pathological diagnosis suggested 1 case of serous cystadenoma (SCA), 4 cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) ,5 cases of mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN), 4 cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNET), 2 cases of chronic pancreatitis (CP),4 case of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT). The average operation time was (285.35 ± 95.13 min), ranging from 95 to 420 min. The average estimate blood loss was (196.50 ± 174.45ml) ,ranging from 10 to 600ml.The average post-operative hospital stay was(20.90 ± 14.44days),ranging from 8 to 54 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 patients (50%). A total of 5 patients (20%) suffered grade B or C pancreatic fistula. Two patients (10%) suffered from biliary fistula. Two patients (10%) suffered from delayed gastric emptying. One patient (5%) suffered from abdominal bleeding. The 90-day mortality was 0. No patient was observed tumor recurrence and new-onset diabetes but one developed diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

RA-DPPHRt or LDPPHRt provided a minimally invasive approach with good organ-preservation for patients with benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic head tumor. It is only recommended to be performed in high-volume pancreatic centers by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Biliary-enteric reconstruction in laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and quality of biliary-enteric reconstruction (BER) in laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (LsRRH) versus open surgery and propose technical recommendations.

METHODS

Data of 38 LsRRH and 54 radical laparotomy resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (LtRRH) cases were collected from our institution. BER was evaluated via biliary residuals numbers, number of anastomoses, anastomosis manner, suture method, time consumption, and postoperative complication.

RESULTS

In the LsRRH group, patients were relatively younger; Bismuth type I had a higher proportion while type IIIa and IV were less and required no revascularization. In LsRRH and LtRRH groups, respectively, the biliary residuals number was 2.54 ± 1.62 and 2.47 ± 1.46 (p > 0.05); the number of anastomoses was 2.04 ± 1.27 and 2.57 ± 1.33 (p > 0.05); the time of BER was 65.67 ± 21.53 and 42.5 ± 19.77 min (p < 0.05), 15.08 ± 3.64% and 11.76 ± 2.54% of the total operation time (p < 0.05); postoperative bile leakage incidence was 15.79% and 16.67% (p > 0.05); 14 ± 10.28 and 17 ± 9.73 days for healing (p < 0.05); anastomosis stenosis rate was 2.63% and 1.85% (p > 0.05). Neither group had a biliary hemorrhage or bile leakage-related death.

CONCLUSION

The selection bias in LsRRH mainly affects tumor resection than BER. Our cohort study indicates that BER in LsRRH is technically feasible and equals anastomotic quality to open surgery. However, its longer and a more significant proportion of total operation time represent that BER has higher technical requirements and is one of the critical rate-limiting steps affecting the minimal invasiveness of LsRRH.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Perioperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study of 653 Cases in a Single Institution

Introduction: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining wide acceptance within pancreatic surgery. However, longitudinal data are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze and assess the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of LPD over a duration of 8 years. Methods: Patients who underwent LPD in our institution between November 2013 and September 2021 were included in this study. The perioperative outcomes were statistically analyzed. The long-term survival was studied over a median follow-up duration of 13 months. Results: In total, 653 consecutive patients treated at our institution were included, of which 617 cases underwent standard LPD and 36 cases underwent LPD with vascular resection. The rate of death in hospital, reoperation, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying were 4.4%, 10.3%, 11.9%, 12.9%, and 6.1% respectively. There were statistical differences in the intraoperative blood loss and transfusion, operation time, and the R0 resection rate between the LPD cases and LPD with vascular resection cases. A total of 526 cases were pathologically diagnosed of cancer. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 49.2%, 17.9%, and 17.9%, respectively, for pancreatic cancer with the median survival time of 12 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 76.9%, 60.8%, and 52.5%, respectively, for bile duct cancer with the median survival time of 35 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 80.2%, 62.2%, and 52.9%, respectively, for duodenal cancer with the median survival time of 53 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 72.5%, 54.5%, and 50%, respectively, for ampullary cancer with the median survival time of 55 months. Conclusion: LPD is a feasible and oncologically acceptable procedure with satisfying perioperative outcomes and long-term survival in a high-volume institution.

Postoperative complications and short-term prognosis of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been accepted worldwide for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), it is a very technical and challenging procedure. Also, it is unclear whether LPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study summarized the experience and efficacy of LPD for treating PDA in our medical center.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDA admitted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University from October 2019 and January 2021. Patients received either LPD or OPD. Clinical outcomes (operation time, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative hemorrhage), postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes were compared. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Among the PDA patients, 101 patients underwent surgical treatment, 4 patients converted from LPD to OPD, and 7 of them received conservative treatment. Forty-six patients were cured of LPD, and 1 of them died shortly after the operation. Moreover, 44 patients received OPD, and there were 2 postoperative deaths. There were significant differences in the location of the operation time, duration of anesthesia, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal infections, and postoperative pneumonia between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LPD was an independent factor negatively correlated with the incidence of pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 0.072, 95%CI: 0.016-0.326, p = 0.001) and abdominal infection (RR = 0.182, 95%CI: 0.047-0.709, p = 0.014). Also, there were no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.60-3.53, p = 0.40) and PFS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32, p = 0.37) at 12 months between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD could be efficacy and feasible for managing selected PDA patients. Also, LPD has a better effect in reducing postoperative pneumonia and abdominal infection compared to OPD.

Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches. Our study aimed to determine the outcomes of LPD in the elderly patients, by performing a systematic review and a meta-analysis of relevant studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify all studies that compared laparoscopic vs. open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Results: Five retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. Overall, 90-day mortality rates were significantly decreased after LPD in elderly patients compared with open approaches (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.32−0.96; p = 0.037, I2 = 0%). The laparoscopic approach had similar mortality rate at 30-day, readmission rate in hospital, Clavien−Dindo complications, pancreatic fistula grade B/C, complete resection rate, reoperation for complications and blood loss as the open approach. Additionally, comparing with younger patients (<70 years old), no significant differences were seen in elderly cohort patients regarding mortality rate at 90 days, readmission rate to hospital, and complication rate. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, we identify that LPD in elderly is a safe procedure, with significantly lower 90-day mortality rates when compared with the open approach. Our results should be considered with caution, considering the retrospective analyses of the included studies; larger prospective studies are required.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and poor functional reserve remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPD in elderly patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies published from their inception to January 2022 reporting perioperative outcomes after LPD in elderly patients were included in the search (Group 1, comparing the perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in elderly patients; Group 2, comparing the perioperative outcomes after LPD between elderly and non-elderly patients). The evaluated outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative complications, conversion, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and readmission.

Results

In total 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of Group 1 showed that EBL, 90-day mortality, major morbidity, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, POP, POCE, and readmission were not significantly different between the LPD and the OPD group. LPD was associated with longer operative time, lower POPF rate, lower DEG rate, and shorter POHS. Pooled analysis of Group 2 showed that mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DEG, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, conversion, operative time, EBL, and readmission were not significantly different between the elderly and the non-elderly group. The POHS of elderly group was significantly longer than non-elderly group.

Conclusion

LPD may be a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients and is associated with short POHS.

Effect of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly People: A Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered to be the most complicated operation in abdominal surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies that were published before June 2020. Seven cohort studies were eligible with 3200 patients. The result of meta-analysis showed that, for the elderly, severe complications, clinical pancreas fistula, and delayed gastric emptying in the LPD group were significantly lower than those in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) group. There was no significant difference in postoperative bleeding, reoperation, and readmission between the 2 groups. For the LPD, the mortality, delayed gastric emptying, and severe complication in elder patients were significantly higher than those in young patients. There was no significant difference in postoperative bleeding, R0 rate, reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the aged and the young. Therefore, LPD can reduce postoperative complications in elderly patients compared with OPD, which can be used as a potential alternative to OPD in elderly patients. However, laparoscopic approach cannot eliminate the high risk of postoperative death and severe complications caused by age. More high-quality studies need to be done for further verification.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) for pancreatic head or periampullary lesions is being utilized with increasing frequency. However, few data are available for the elderly. The objective of this study is to assess the safety and feasibility of MIPD in elderly population, by making a comparison with conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and with non-elderly population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify all eligible studies in Cochrane Library, Ovid, and PubMed from their inception up to April 2020.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective studies involving 2727 patients were included. Of these, 3 compared MIPD and OPD in elderly patients, 2 compared MIPD in elderly and non-elderly patients, and 2 included both outcomes. Compared to those with OPD, elderly patients who underwent MIPD were associated with less 90-day mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04) and fewer delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88; P = 0.01). On the other hand, no significant difference was observed in terms of 30-day mortality, major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, 30-day readmission, and operative time. For patients who have treated with MIPD, elderly did not reveal worse outcomes than non-elderly.

CONCLUSION

MIPD is a safe and feasible procedure for select elderly patients if performed by experienced surgeons from high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm this.

Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Duodenum-Preserving Total Pancreatic Head Resection Compared with Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Management of Pancreatic-Head Benign or Low-Grade Malignant Lesions

Background

Several studies have shown that laparoscopic duodenum-preserving total pancreatic head resection (LDPPHRt) is safe, effective, and feasible for the management of pancreatic-head benign or low-grade malignant lesions. However, there are no studies comparing the short-term outcomes between LDPPHRt and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The present study aimed to evaluate the differences in the intraoperative data, postoperative data, short-term complications, and 90-day mortality rates between LDPPHRt and LPD in the management of pancreatic-head benign or low-grade malignant tumors.

Material/Methods

Between January 2016 and December 2019, 15 LDPPHRt and 39 LPD procedures were performed. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed and compared.

Results

All of the patients received laparoscopic procedures successfully and without conversion. There were no differences in the patients’ age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, preoperative examination results, preoperative initial symptoms, comorbidities, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative stay, short-term complications, 30-day readmission rates, or 90-day mortality rates. More female patients underwent LDPPHRt than LPD (73.3% vs. 38.5%; P=0.033), and no patients in the LDPPHRt group had previously undergone abdominal surgery (0% vs. 20.1%; P=0.049). The operative time was shorter in the LDPPHRt group than in the LPD group (295±42 vs. 357±87 min; P=0.011). The lesion diameter did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (2.93±1.18 vs. 2.53±1.12 cm; P=0.252). The lesion resection margins were all histopathologically negative. The distribution of pathological diagnosis was comparable in both groups. The LDPPHRt group had 4 cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (26.7%), 1 case of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPN) (6.7%), 2 cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNET) (13.3%), 2 cases of serous cystic adenoma (SCA) (13.3%), 4 cases of mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) (26.7%), and 2 cases of chronic pancreatitis (13.3%). The LPD group had 21 cases of IPMN (53.8%), 2 cases of SPN (5.1%), 7 cases of PNET (17.9%), 3 cases of SCA (7.7%), 2 cases of MCN (5.1%), and 4 cases of chronic pancreatitis (10.3%).

Conclusions

LDPPHRt is a time-saving procedure with short-term outcomes comparable to those of LPD for the management of benign or low-grade malignancies of the pancreatic head.