Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in octogenarians

Pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients < 75 years versus ≥ 75 years old: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of < 75-year-old patients and ≥ 75-year-old patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic head and periampullary region tumors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PD in our hospital between February 2019 and December 2023 were evaluated. Demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, comorbidities, hospital stays, complications, and clinicopathological features were analyzed. Patients were divided into < 75 years (Group A) and ≥ 75 years (Group B) groups and compared.

RESULTS

The median age of the entire cohort (n = 155) was 66 years (IQR = 16). There was a significant difference between Group A (n = 128) and Group B (n = 27) regarding the ECOG-PS and ASA scores. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding postoperative complications. The 30-day mortality rate was greater in Group B (p = 0.017). Group B had a cumulative median survival of 10 months, whereas Group A had a median survival of 28 months, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). When age groups were stratified according to ECOG-PS, for ECOG-PS 2-3 Group A, survival was 15 months; for ECOG-PS 2-3 Group B, survival was eight months, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.628).

CONCLUSIONS

With the increasing aging population, patient selection for PD should not be based solely on age. This study demonstrated that PD is safe for patients older than 75 years. In older patients, performance status and the optimization of comorbidities should be considered when deciding on a candidate's suitability for surgery.

Surgical Risks and Survival Outcomes in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Aged Over 80: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim

Whether to execute pancreaticoduodenectomy or not for older people could pose a dilemma. This study clarifies the safety and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for older individuals over 80.

Methods

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were divided into group O (≥ 80 y/o) and group Y (< 80 y/o) for comparison.

Results

There were 62 (12.4%) patients in group O. Surgical mortality was 1.6% for overall patients and higher in group O, 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001. The surgical complication was comparable between groups O and Y. Delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage were higher in group O, 9.7% vs 2.5%; p = 0.004, and 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001, respectively. Length of stay was also longer in group O, with a median of 26 vs 19 days; p = 0.001. Survival outcome after RPD was poorer in group O for overall periampullary adenocarcinomas, with a 5-year survival of 48.1% vs 51.2%; p = 0.025 and also for the subgroup of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, with a 3-year survival of 27.4% vs 42.5%; p = 0.030.

Conclusion

RPD is safe and justified for the selected octogenarians and even nonagenarians, whoever is fit for a major operation. Nevertheless, pancreatic head cancer and higher mortality risk for the aged over 80 with advanced ASA score ≥ 3 should be informed as part of counselling in offering RPD.

Optimal Insertion Depth of Gastric Decompression Tube with a Thermistor for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery in Trendelenburg Position

Monitoring core temperature is crucial for maintaining normothermia during general anesthesia. Insertion of a gastric decompression tube (GDT) may be required during laparoscopic surgery. Recently, a newly designed GDT with a thermistor for monitoring esophageal temperature has been introduced. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the optimal insertion depth of a GDT with a thermistor. Forty-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position were included in the study. The GDT was inserted to a depth of nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance (NEX) + 12 cm and withdrawn sequentially, 2 cm at a time, at 5-min intervals. Temperatures of the GDT thermistor were compared with the core temperature of the tympanic membrane (TM) using Bland and Altman analysis. The correlation between optimal insertion depth of the GDT and anatomical distance (cricoid cartilage to the carina, CCD; carina to the left hemidiaphragm, CLHD) was evaluated, and a mathematical model to predict the optimal insertion depth of the GDT with a thermistor was calculated. Temperatures of TM and GDT thermistor at NEX + 4 cm showed good agreement and strong correlation, but better agreement and stronger correlation were seen at the actual location with the most minor temperature differences. The optimal insertion depth of the GDT was estimated as -15.524 + 0.414 × CCD - 0.145 × CLHD and showed a strong correlation with the actual GDT insertion depth (correlation coefficient 0.797, adjusted R² = 0.636). The mathematical formula using CCD and CLHD would be helpful in determining the optimal insertion depth of a GDT with a thermistor.

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.

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.