Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy

Clinical comparison of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: a meta-analysis

Objective

A distal pancreatectomy has routinely been used for removing benign/borderline malignant tumors of the body and tail of the pancreas; however, controversy exists whether or not the spleen should be saved. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis for comparing the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

Methods

A literature research from the databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library was performed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes between spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). Pooled odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models.

Results

Eleven non-randomized controlled studies involving 897 patients were selected to satisfy the inclusion criteria; 355 patients underwent SPDP and 542 patients underwent DPS. Compared with DPS, SPDP required a shorter hospital stay (WMD = 1.16, 95% CI = −2.00 to −0.31, P = 0.007), and had a lower incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009). In addition, spleen infarctions occurred in SPDP, most of which involved use of the Warshaw method for preserving the spleen. There were no differences between the SPDP and DPS groups with respect to operative time, operative blood loss, requirement for blood transfusion, pancreatic fistulas, thromboses, post-operative bleeding, wound infections and re-operation rates.

Conclusion

SPDP should be performed due to the benefits of the immune system and quick post-operative recovery. It is also essential to preserve the splenic artery and vein. Large randomized controlled trials are further needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.

Successful interventional radiological management of postoperative complications of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

During the past decade, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained increasing acceptance in the surgical community as a viable treatment option for distal pancreatic lesions. However, the possible complication of post-LDP pancreatic leakage remains a challenge, because it may lead to a series of events resulting in intraperitoneal abscess formation, sepsis, pseudoaneurysm formation, and occasional fatal hemorrhage. Dealing with these complications is extremely difficult and not much experience has been reported to date. We report a case involving the aforementioned post-LDP complications successfully managed by interventional radiological techniques while avoiding reoperation. We conclude that these management options are attractive, safe and minimally invasive alternatives to standard protocols.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: our institution's 5-year experience

BACKGROUND

Application of minimally invasive techniques in the surgical management of distal pancreatic lesions is increasing. Despite this, numbers of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy remain low and limited to treatment of benign and premalignant lesions.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 31 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2010. Patients were grouped according to mode of surgical access: open (ODP) or laparoscopic (LDP). Perioperative parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (67.7%) patients underwent ODP and 10 (32.3%) LDP (median age 61; 80.0% females in LDP group, p = 0.030). Postoperative morbidity rate were comparable between the two groups. In the LDP group, there were significantly lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and amount of blood transfusion (p = 0.001), smaller tumor size (p = 0.010) and fewer lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.020), shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.020), and shorter length of stay in surgical high dependency (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LDP is a safe, efficient technique for resection of benign and premalignant pancreatic lesions. Indices reflecting perioperative outcomes in this study are highly competitive with those in other major centers.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: does splenic preservation affect outcomes?

Although the spleen is often routinely resected during both open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies, a splenectomy can increase the risk of postoperative and life-long infectious complications. Spleen-preserving laparoscopic pancreatectomies can technically be more difficult because of the delicate dissection of the splenic vessels. We performed a retrospective review of 34 laparoscopic pancreatectomies done at our institution. All procedures were done laparoscopically without hand assistance. Attempts were made in all patients to conserve the spleen, which was successful in 10 patients (29%). In the splenectomy group, 9 patients had 12 surgical complications (26%), which was statistically significant compared with the spleen-preserving group, in which there were no complications. This included 7 patients with a pancreatic leak (20%) and 3 with postoperative hemorrhage requiring reexploration (9%). Patients with spleen-preserving pancreatectomies had significantly less blood loss and shorter operative time compared with patients who underwent concomitant splenectomy. Splenic preservation should be attempted in all patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy unless there are overriding oncological or anatomic concerns.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: comparison of postoperative outcomes and surrogates of splenic function

OBJECTIVES

Published data on splenic preservation during distal pancreatectomy have been inconsistent. We hypothesized that patients undergoing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) would have fewer infectious and non-infectious complications than those undergoing en bloc distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), and that their haematological parameters would be consistent with splenic function.

METHODS

Of 97 patients who underwent either SPDP using the Warshaw technique or en bloc DPS, 78 met our study inclusion criteria. Records were reviewed for data on age, gender, resection, indications for resection, operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, infectious complications, any other complications, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts. Data were analysed using the chi-squared test, the two-sided Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon text, and simple and multiple logistic regression analyses. A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing SPDP had a shorter length of stay and shorter operative time, were more likely to be completed laparoscopically, less likely to require re-operation, and had fewer infectious and non-infectious complications. However, these differences were not statistically significant. In multiple logistic regression analyses, patient age and length of hospital stay were both significant predictors of the occurrence of non-infectious complications (P= 0.04 and P= 0.006, respectively). Blood transfusion was a significant predictor of postoperative morbidity (P= 0.013 for infectious complications; P= 0.018 for non-infectious complications). White blood cell count was a statistically significant predictor of infectious (P= 0.02) and non-infectious (P= 0.04) complications, whereas platelet count was not. Patients who underwent DPS had statistically significantly higher WBC and platelet counts immediately postoperatively and at 6 months compared with SPDP patients. Postoperative mortality in both the SPDP and DPS groups was 0%. None of the 30 SPDP patients had evidence of splenic infarction. Pancreatic leaks occurred in 18% of patients in the SPDP group, compared with 8% in the DPS group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy using the Warshaw technique is associated with lower postoperative morbidity than DPS. Lower WBC and platelet counts suggest better splenic function in SPDP patients.

Splenic preserving distal pancreatectomy: does vessel preservation matter?

BACKGROUND

Splenic preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) can be accomplished with splenic artery and vein preservation or ligation. However, no data are available on the relative merits of these techniques. The aim of this analysis was to compare the outcomes of splenic preserving distal pancreatectomy with and without splenic vessel preservation.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2002 through 2009, 434 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy and 86 (20%) had splenic preservation. Vessel preservation (VP) was accomplished in 45 and ligation (VL) was performed in 41. These patients were similar with respect to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, pathology, surgeons, and minimally invasive approach (79%). For comparison, a matched group of 86 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DP+S) was analyzed.

RESULTS

The VP-SPDP procedure was associated with less blood loss than VL-SPDP or DP+S (224 vs 508 vs 646 mL, respectively; p < 0.05). The VP-SPDP procedure also resulted in fewer grade B or C pancreatic fistulas (2% vs 12% vs 14%; p = NS) and splenic infarctions (5% vs 39%; p < 0.01), less overall morbidity (18% vs 39% vs 38%, respectively; p < 0.05) and need for drainage procedure (2% vs 15% vs 16%; p < 0.05), and shorter post-operative length of stay (4.5 vs 6.2 vs 6.6 days; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that outcomes are (1) best for VP-SPDP and (2) VL-SPDP provides no short-term advantage over distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. We conclude that splenic VP is preferred when SPDP is performed.

Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies

BACKGROUND

The current literature suggests that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with faster recovery and less morbidity than open surgery. However, most studies have been limited by a small sample size and a single-institution design. To overcome this problem, the first metaanalysis of studies comparing MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has been performed.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIDP and ODP. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For the metaanalysis, 10 studies including 349 patients undergoing MIDP and 380 patients undergoing ODP were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, and indication for surgery. The rate of conversion from full laparoscopy to hand-assisted procedure was 37%, and that from minimally invasive to open procedure was 11%. Patients undergoing MIDP had less blood loss, a shorter time to oral intake, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The mortality and reoperative rates did not differ between MIDP and ODP. The MIDP approach had fewer overall complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.89], major complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.96), surgical-site infections (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53), and pancreatic fistulas (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The MIDP procedure is feasible, safe, and associated with less blood loss and overall complications, shorter time to oral intake, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, the minimally invasive approach reduces the rate of pancreatic leaks and surgical-site infections after ODP.

Alternative port site selection (APSS) for improved cosmesis in laparoscopic surgery

The use of laparoscopy can be associated with improved cosmesis following a variety of gastrointestinal procedures versus standard open surgery. The placement of laparoscopic ports in less visible areas of the body such as the bikini line, termed alternative port site selection (APSS), may result in further improved cosmesis. Performance of laparoscopic procedures from such alternative port placement areas may be associated with increased technical challenge. This manuscript discusses APSS approaches for two common laparoscopic procedures, cholecystectomy and gastric banding. Familiarity and implementation of these techniques can allow select patients to undergo procedures with less visible scarring and is less challenging than laparoscopic single site approaches.

Robotic left pancreatectomy for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumor

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudopapillary pancreatic tumors of pancreas are a rare entity, seen most often in females in their second or third decades. Although previously believed to be benign, this tumor is currently considered a low-grade malignant epithelial neoplasm with low metastatic rate and high overall survival.1,2 Its resection could be performed by robotic technique with respect to oncological principles to avoid tumor cell dissemination.3

METHODS

In this multimedia article, we present a 28-year-old female with a history of hyperthyroidism who underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan because of a persistent high C-reactive protein level following caesarean section. This CT scan revealed a 7-cm cystic lesion of the pancreatic tail. The serum tumor marker CA 19-9 was normal. Further investigation with an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed that the lesion was macrocystic with internal septas compatible with a solid pseudopapillary neoplasm.4 The patient was treated with robotic distal splenopanceatectomy (video).

RESULTS

The operative time was 5 h with an estimated blood loss of 250 mL. No blood transfusion was necessary. The postoperative period was uneventful, and she was discharged on postoperative day 8. The histological finding revealed a solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas pT2pN0 (0/14 lymph nodes removed). There was no evidence of clinical, biological, and radiological pancreatic fistula, and a control CT scan on postoperative day 8 did not show any abdominal fluid collection. The patient's 1 month follow-up was normal.

DISCUSSION

The robotic distal splenopancreatectomy is a procedure that offers some technical and oncological advantages over the already described minimally invasive techniques for distal pancreatic tumors.5,6 These advantages are mainly due to the stability of the operative field, to the 3D and magnified vision, and to the articulated robotic arms.7-9 The 3D representation and the stability of the operative field facilitate the performance of operative steps, as the creation of the retropancreatic tunnel and vascular identification. Moreover, the robotic articulated arms permit a superior handling of vascular structures, allowing a fine dissection that is extremely useful during lymphadenectomy. Articulated instruments easily achieve the correct rotation axis, thus minimizing peri-pancreatic tissue retraction and manipulation of the pancreatic gland. This smooth and no-touch technique in theory minimizes the risk of pancreatic capsule rupture as well as tumor cell dissemination, respecting oncological surgical standards. However, robotic surgery needs an adequate learning curve, especially concerning the installation and the lack of force feedback.

CONCLUSION

The robotic distal pancreatectomy is a possible minimally invasive technique for patients with solid pseudopapillary pancreatic tumors. It presents some advantages over the laparoscopic approach. Nevertheless its oncological indications are yet to be defined.10.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy offers shorter hospital stays with fewer complications

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly performed for lesions of the body and tail of the pancreas. The aim of this study was to investigate short-term outcomes after LDP compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) at a single, high-volume institution.

METHODS

We reviewed records of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and compared perioperative data between LDP and ODP. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients underwent DP. Beginning in 2001, 95 were attempted, and 71 were completed laparoscopically with a 25.3% conversion rate. Compared to ODP, LDP had similar rates of splenic preservation, pancreatic fistula, and mortality. LDP had lower blood loss (150 vs. 900 mL, p < 0.01), smaller tumor size (2.5 vs. 3.6 cm, p < 0.01), and shorter length of resected pancreas (7.7 vs. 10.0 cm, p < 0.01). LDP had fewer complications (28.2% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.02) as well as shorter hospital stays (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP can be performed safely and effectively in patients with benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms of the distal pancreas. When feasible in selected patients, LDP offers fewer complications and shorter hospital stays.

Robotic distal splenopancreatectomy: bridging the gap between pancreatic and minimal access surgery

INTRODUCTION

Almost 10 years have passed since computer-aided, most commonly known as robotic surgery, has emerged gaining slowly but steadily its place within minimally invasive surgical procedures. Nevertheless, pancreatic surgeons only recently have started incorporating it into current practice.

METHODS

In this 'how I do it' article, we describe our method for robotic distal splenopancreatectomy, focusing on its technical advantages, as well as its drawbacks. Furthermore, we describe some pitfalls commonly encountered during the procedure and we propose ways to avoid them.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic robotic-assisted surgery is offering many practical advantages over the "classic" laparoscopic approach. Even though a difficult procedure to master, it may have the potential to establish the concept of minimally invasive surgery in areas where it is nonexistent as in pancreatic surgery.

Tumors of the Pancreatic Body and Tail

Tumors of the pancreatic body and tail are uncommon. They have a propensity to present late and often attain a large size with local invasion before they produce any clinical symptoms. The current review aims at comprehensively analysing these tumors with respect to their pathology, presentation, the investigation of these tumors, and finally the latest trends in their surgical and medical management.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic conservation: an operation without increased morbidity

Objectives. The advent of minimally invasive techniques was marked by a paradigm shift towards the use of laparoscopy for benign distal pancreatic masses. Herein we describe one center's experience with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Methods. A retrospective chart review was performed for all distal pancreatectomies completed laparoscopically from 1999 to 2009. Outcomes from those cases completed with a concurrent splenectomy were compared to the spleen-preserving procedures. Results. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Seven had spleen-conserving operations. There was no difference in the mean estimated blood loss (316 versus 285 mL, P = .5) or operative time (179 versus 170 minutes, P = .9). The mean tumor size was not significantly different (3.1 versus 2.2 cm, P = .9). There was no difference in the average hospital stay (7.1 versus 7.0 days, P = .7). Complications in the spleen-preserving group included one iatrogenic colon injury, two pancreatic fistulas, and two cases of iatrogenic diabetes. In the splenectomy group, two developed respiratory failure, three acquired iatrogenic diabetes, and two suffered pancreatic fistulas (71% versus 41%, P = .4). Conclusions. The laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a safe operation with a low morbidity. Splenic conservation does not significantly increase the morbidity of the procedure.

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare technical feasibility and oncologic efficacy of totally laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma is emerging in the West as a technique that may offer benefits for patients, although large-scale studies are lacking.

METHODS

This study was designed as a case-controlled study from a prospective gastric cancer database. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma were compared with 30 patients undergoing open subtotal gastrectomy. Controls were matched for stage, age, and gender via a statistically generated selection of all gastrectomies performed during the same period of time. Patient demographics, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, histologic features, location of tumor, lymph node retrieval, recurrence, margins, and early and late postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

Tumor location and histology were similar between the two groups. Median operative time for the laparoscopic approach was 270 min (range 150-485 min) compared with median of 126 min (range 85-205 min) in the open group (p < 0.01). Hospital length of stay after laparoscopic gastrectomy was 5 days (range 2-26 days), compared with 7 days (range 5-30 days) in the open group (p = 0.01). Postoperative pain, as measured by number of days of IV narcotic use, was significantly lower for laparoscopic patients, with a median of 3 days (range 0-11 days) compared with 4 days (range 1-13 days) in the open group (p < 0.01). Postoperative early complications trended towards a decrease for laparoscopic versus open surgery patients (p = 0.07); however, there were significantly more late complications for the open group (p = 0.03). Short-term recurrence-free survival and margin status was similar between the two groups (p = not significant) with adequate lymph node retrieval in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma is comparable to the open approach with regard to oncologic principles of resection, with equivalent margin status and adequate lymph node retrieval, demonstrating technically feasibility and equivalent short-term recurrence-free survival. Additional benefits of decreased postoperative complications, decreased length of hospital stay, and decreased narcotic use make this a preferable approach for selected patients.

Efficacy of the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer in laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) with conservation of the splenic artery and vein has recently been performed as a minimally invasive surgery to retain splenic function in the treatment of pancreatic diseases. As the branches of the splenic vessels are very delicate, division of these branches increases the risk of bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To overcome this problem, we have used the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer (EBVS) to divide branches of the splenic vessels in LSPDP while conserving the splenic vessels themselves.

RESULTS

The EBVS reliably provided excellent and safe hemostasis, minimizing the risk of serious blood loss.

CONCLUSION

Use of the EBVS is safe and efficient in LSPDP with conservation of the splenic vessels.

Malignant pancreatic tumors: incidence and outcome in 58 pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to examine current incidence trends and outcomes for children with pancreatic malignancies.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1973-2004) was examined for pediatric patients with pancreatic malignancies (up to 19 years of age).

RESULTS

Malignant pancreatic neoplasms were identified in 58 patients. Females outnumbered males 1.9 to 1 (38 vs 20) for an age population-adjusted incidence of 0.021 and 0.015 per 100,000. Overall, 70% (n = 41) of patients were white. Asians had the highest incidence. Tumors were classified as exocrine (n = 31, 53.4%), endocrine (n = 19, 32.8%), or sarcomas (n = 5, 8.6%). Exocrine tumors included pancreatoblastoma (n = 10), solid-cystic tumor (SCT) (n = 10), ductal adenocarcinoma (DA) (n = 7), and acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) (n = 4). All SCTs and 80% of pancreatoblastomas were seen in females, whereas males had a higher incidence of DA 71% (P = .036). Ductal adenocarcinoma, SCT, acinar cell carcinoma, sarcomas, and endocrine tumors were more common in children older than 10 years, whereas pancreatoblastoma was more common in younger children (P = .045). Almost half of patients (n = 25) presented with distant metastasis; of these, 44% were endocrine tumors. Survival was significantly greater for female patients (P = .004) and for those who had surgery (P = .001) by both univariate and multivariate analysis. There was a significant difference in tumor type 15-year survival with DA having the worst (23%) and SCT the best (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric pancreatic neoplasms are uncommon and carry a variable prognosis. Both female sex and surgery were independent predictors of improved survival.

Open and laparoscopic spleen-preserving, splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy: indications and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has been described lately in order to reduce the risks associated with splenectomy. The aim of this study is to report a series of open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with splenic vessel preservation.

METHODS

From June 2001 to April 2007, 11 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were performed, utilizing open and laparoscopic techniques. The main variables recorded were demographics, intra- and postoperative complications, and final pathology results.

RESULTS

All 11 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were performed successfully. Laparoscopic resection was possible in seven patients. Postoperative morbidity consisted of one pancreatic fluid collection. The overall incidence of pancreatic leak was 18%. The final pathology revealed serous cystadenoma in 36% of the cases, neuroendocrine tumor in two cases, three mucinous cystadenomas, one carcinoid tumor, and one intrapancreatic spleen. With a median follow-up of 26 months, no splenic vein thrombosis was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Open or laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation is a feasible and safe procedure. In selected cases of cystic lesions and low grade neoplasms, distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation is possible.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the Brisbane experience of forty-six cases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe alternative to conventional open distal pancreatectomy, with advantages that include smaller incisions, less pain, and shorter postoperative recovery. Despite these apparent advantages, however, uptake of the procedure has been slow, with only a handful of series published.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All LDPs performed in Brisbane, Australia, over a 10-year period (May 1996 to June 2006) were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty-six consecutive LDPs were performed. A variety of lesions were resected, including nine cancers. Twelve patients were converted for oncological (6) or technical reasons (6). The spleen was retained in 14/29 patients, either by main splenic vessel preservation (9) or solely supported by the short gastric vessels (5), resulting in inferior pole infarction in 2 patients. Overall morbidity was 39%, including 15% pancreatic fistula. All fistulas resolved after a median of 6 weeks without re-operation. A non-significant trend toward fewer fistulas with stapled rather than sutured stump closure was observed (13% vs 19%; p=0.43). Median operative duration and hospital stay were 157 min and 7 days, respectively. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSION

LDP is a safe alternative to conventional resection for a wide range of lesions. As with open resection, pancreatic fistula is the dominant morbidity, but is generally indolent. While spleen preservation is often possible, care must be taken to avoid infarction of the inferior pole if the Warshaw technique is utilized.

Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: Description of an Original Posterior Approach

We are describing in this paper the original and innovative technique we used to perform a spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. With the patient positioned on her right lateral side, we inserted four laparoscopic ports in the left subcostal region to enable an upper view on the spleen and its rear attachments. With this approach, we opened and dissected this plan located between the left kidney and the rear aspect of the spleen and of the pancreas. These structures, once liberated naturally, felt "en-bloc" out of the way because of the patient's lateral positioning and the gravity, exposing the operative field without any artificial retraction. Beyond this greater exposure, this new approach offers many other advantages, such as the easiness to be performed by only two operators and the preservation of the anterior abdominal cavity, the great omentum, the splenic vessels, and the short gastric vessels left untouched.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: the past, present, and future

Since the early 1990s, laparoscopic techniques have been applied to a growing number of pancreatic surgeries. Laparoscopic pancreatic resections have been performed in patients with a variety of diseases including chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic trauma, congenital hyperinsulinism, and neoplasms of the pancreas; e.g., insulinoma, mucinous cystic neoplasm, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, etc. Laparoscopic pancreatic resections with an en bloc lymph node dissection have also been performed for invasive carcinomas. The long-term results after laparoscopic resections for invasive pancreatic cancer, however, are still not well defined. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with or without spleen preservation may benefit patients with reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, a quicker recovery to normal activity, and better cosmetic appearances based on retrospective analyses of collective series and case reports. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these benefits. In contrast, laparoscopic proximal pancreatectomies with or without duodenum preservation remain controversial. Although a laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection are technically feasible, laparoscopic reconstruction after proximal pancreatectomies is not yet generally practicable but limited to personal experiences by highly skilled endoscopic surgeons. To justify the performance of laparoscopic proximal pancreatectomies, it is mandatory to demonstrate the potential clinical benefits and safety of these complicated procedures.

Laparoscopy-assisted distal pancreatectomy with mobilization of the distal pancreas and the spleen outside the abdominal cavity

Laparoscopic ligation of the peripancreatic vessels or duct requires a particularly skillful technique. If the pancreatic tail and the spleen can be mobilized outside of the abdominal cavity, surgeons can perform these procedures as easily as ordinary open surgery. We developed a novel approach to laparoscopy-assisted distal pancreatectomy without hand-assist. In brief, the pancreatic tail and the spleen were mobilized laparoscopically from the retroperitoneum until the celiac axis was exposed, then the pancreatic tail and the spleen were laparoscopically mobilized outside the peritoneal cavity from a small incision at the upper abdomen. After mobilization, the distal pancreatectomy was performed as usual open method. This approach offers better results in coping with organs, which seem to be difficult to resect through laparoscopic surgery alone.

Innovations in Treating the Elderly Who Have Biliary and Pancreatic Disease

Many diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas preferentially effect the elderly. Recent innovations in the evaluation and management of these disorders have directly impacted the lives of many seniors. Improved outcomes of pancreatic surgery is a good example of a positive impact in quality of life, especially when these surgeries are performed in centers of excellence. Evaluation and treatment strategies are presented for complicated calculous biliary disease, pancreatic carcinoma, and pancreatic cystic neoplasms.

N/A

N/A