Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic masses in 12 dogs

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical management and outcome of dogs undergoing laparoscopic pancreatic mass resection (LPMR).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

ANIMALS

Twelve client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Data collected from medical records of dogs that underwent LPMR between 2012 and 2023 included signalment, clinical signs, mass location within pancreas, preoperative diagnostic imaging, laparoscopic approach, number of portals and device type used for LPMR, operating time, complications and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Pancreatic tumors were located in the left lobe (7), in the right lobe (4) and in the body of the pancreas (1). A 3- or 4-port technique was used in nine and three dogs, respectively. LPMR was performed with the Ligasure in nine dogs, a harmonic scalpel in two dogs and an endoscopic stapler in one dog. The procedure was performed successfully, with no conversion to open laparotomy, in all cases with a median operating time of 69 min. Postoperative complications occurred in four dogs, which resolved with medical treatments. All dogs survived the surgical procedure, were discharged from the hospital and alive a minimum of 90 days postoperatively. The final follow-up time ranged between 105 and 245 days (median 147). Histopathological diagnosis included insulinoma (9) and pancreatic carcinoma (3).

CONCLUSION

LPMR was performed successfully using a 3- or 4-port technique and was associated with a low complication rate and a good clinical outcome.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

LPMR may be considered as an alternative to open celiotomy in dogs, particularly for small tumors located in the distal aspect of the pancreatic lobes.

Incidence and outcomes of postoperative fluid collections after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy without placement of surgical drain. A prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There is uncertainty about the role of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains after distal pancreatectomy. In the present study, we aimed to describe the long-term outcomes of postoperative pancreatic collections in patients who underwent a minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without surgical drain placement.

METHODS

From 2018 to 2022, consecutive patients who underwent a MIDP were recorded. Patients were followed at 90 days, 6 months, and in the long term. The use of interventional procedures and antibiotic therapy were documented, and the overall evolution of the collections was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients underwent MIDP; 11 were excluded; 80 were analyzed. Median age was 63 (51-73) years; 61.3% were women. Most lesions (71.3%) were malignant; 15 patients received neoadjuvant therapy. Procedures were laparoscopic (87.5%) or robotic (12.5%). Incidence of postoperative pancreatic collections was 33%; 10 patients were symptomatic. Interventional endoscopic (n = 3) or percutaneous (n = 3) procedures were required. At a follow-up of 24 (17.5-33.1) months, 18 collections resolved completely, eight partially, and one increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo MIDP without surgical drain placement develop well-tolerated pancreatic collections. Although a minority may require endoscopic or percutaneous drainage, the majority can be managed conservatively and resolve spontaneously in the long term.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

METHODS

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

CONCLUSION

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Comparison of different pancreatic stump management strategies during robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) represents the most feared complication after distal pancreatectomy, and the possible role of robotic assistance in this setting is poorly investigated so far.

METHODS

We analysed short-term outcomes of 88 patients who had undergone robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP), dividing them according to pancreatic stump management: selective Wirsung duct ligation/hand sewn suture (WirsLIG group), use of robotic EndoWrist staplers (RobSTAP group), and use of laparoscopic staplers (LapSTAP group).

RESULTS

Mean operative time resulted significantly longer in WirsLIG group (291.1 ± 77.21 min vs. 245 ± 56.22 min in RobSTAP group vs. 221.77 ± 64.64 min in LapSTAP group). No significant differences were found in median hospital stay and in POPF occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

No strategy for pancreatic stump management during RDP has proven superior to the others in reducing POPF rates. The hand-sewn technique resulted more time consuming, nevertheless it remains essential where there is not enough space to insert the stapler.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Laparoscopic versus robotic approach-A cohort study

Background and Aims

There is no consensus on the superiority of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Data of patients undergoing RDP and LDP were prospectively collected and compared.

Results

There were 65 RDP and 112 LDP. RDP took a shorter operation time than LDP. Overall, DP with splenectomy took a longer operation time than that with spleen preservation. This difference was only significant in LDP group. In both RDP and LDP groups, splenectomy was associated with increased blood loss, as compared with spleen preservation. No significant differences were observed in surgical morbidity between RDP and LDP. The hospital cost in RDP was almost double that of LDP, with a median of 13,404 versus 7765 USD.

Conclusion

LDP is comparable to RDP in regard to surgical outcomes. LDP with spleen preservation is highly recommended whenever possible and feasible for benign or low malignant lesions in terms of lower costs and less blood loss.

The Association of Postoperative Complications and Hospital Costs Following Distal Pancreatectomy

Background

Understanding the financial implications associated with the complications post-distal pancreatectomy (DP) may be beneficial for the future optimisation of postoperative care pathways and improved cost-efficiency. The primary outcome of this retrospective study was the characterisation of the additional cost associated with postoperative complications following DP. The secondary outcome was the estimation of the prevalence, type and severity of complications post-DP and the determination of which complications were associated with higher costs.

Methods

Postoperative complications were retrospectively examined for 62 adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian university hospital between January 2012 and July 2021. Complications were defined and graded using the Clavien–Dindo (CVD) classification system. In-hospital cost of index admission was calculated using an activity-based costing methodology and was reported in US dollars at 2021 rates. Regression modelling was used to investigate the relationships among selected perioperative variables, complications and costs.

Results

45 patients (72.6%) experienced one or more postoperative complications. The median (IQR) hospital cost in US dollars was 31.6% greater in patients who experienced complications compared to those who experienced no complications ($40,717.8 [27,358.0–59,834.3] vs. $30,946.9 [23,910.8–46,828.1]). Costs for patients with four or more complications were 43.5% higher than for those with three or fewer complications (p = 0.015). Compared to patients with no complications, the median hospital costs increased by 17.1% in patients with minor complications (CVD grade I/II) and by 252% in patients who developed major complication (i.e., CVD grade III/IV) complications.

Conclusion

Postoperative complications are a key target for cost-containment strategies. Our findings demonstrate a high prevalence of postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy with number and severity of postoperative complications being associated with increased hospital costs. (Registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [No. ACTRN12622000202763]).

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Assessment of difficulty in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A modification of the Japanese difficulty scoring system - A single-center high-volume experience

Background

The Japanese difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The study aimed to validate a modified DSS (mDSS) in a European high‐volume center.

Methods

Patients' clinical data underwent LDP for benign and malignant pancreatic lesion between September 2013 and February 2020 were reviewed. Expert laparoscopic surgeons performed the procedures. The mDSS consisted of seven variables, such as type of operation, malignancy, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic resection line, tumor close to major vessels, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension and/or splenomegaly. According to the difficulty level and previous score, the mDSS was subdivided into three classes: low, intermediate, and high. Surrogates of case complexity (operative time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements, conversion rate) were used to validate the new scoring system.

Results

The study population included 140 LDP. Ninety‐five (68%), 35 (25%) and 10 (7%) patients belonged to low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups. The mDSS identified the complexity of the surgical case of the series for all the surrogates of complexity considered, namely conversion rate (P = .004), operative time (P = .033) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .009). No differences were recorded in the postoperative outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusion

The mDSS for LDP better stratified the pancreatic procedures according to their complexity. The new scoring system may allow an appropriate preoperative evaluation of surgical difficulty, facilitating LDP's training program. Future prospective studies are needed to validate the mDSS.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

A retrospective comparative study of robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessel and spleen preservation

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal pancreatectomy has been accepted to be safe and effective for pancreatic tail lesion. Whether spleen preservation by preserving the splenic vessels with robot assistance is feasible and beneficial remains controversial. Here we would like to compare the operative outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy (DPS) with robotic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy by means of splenic vessel preservation (SVP).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and September 2019, 56 consecutive patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy were identified, with 28 patients in each group. Patient demographics, histopathology findings and operative outcomes were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups. A subgroup analysis was made after excluding malignant and pancreatic lesions >6 cm in the DPS group.

RESULTS

The two groups had similar conversion rate, blood loss, morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate. There was no operative mortality. The SVP group had shorter median operative time (245 vs 303.5 min, P = 0.019) and shorter median hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P = 0.019) than the DPS group. However, all malignant lesions occurred in the DPS group and lesion size in DPS group was significantly larger. After matching, there were 28 SVP and 15 DPS. The histopathology findings and lesion size became comparable. The SVP group still had shorter operative time (245 vs 290 min, P = 0.022) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 7 days, P = 0.014) than the DPS group.

CONCLUSION

Apart from avoiding risk of overwhelming postsplenectomy sepsis, robotic SVP had additional advantage of shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay than robotic DPS.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

Purpose

The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP.

Results

Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0–32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients.

Conclusion

The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.

Preoperative predictive factors of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy difficulty

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a challenging operation due to technical complexity and tumor-related factors. Aim of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors affecting LDP difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LDP between 2015 and 2018 at San Raffaele Hospital and Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital were enrolled retrospectively. Three variables were used to define surgical difficulty: conversion to open, duration of surgery >3rd quartile and intraoperative blood loss >3rd quartile. The presence of ≥1 of these 3 variables was considered as another measure of difficulty.

RESULTS

Overall, 191 patients were included. Conversion to open was required in 25 patients (13%). At multiple regression analysis, tumor proximity to major vessels was the only independent predictor of conversion from laparoscopic to open (p < 0.001). No variables independently predicted an excessive duration of surgery. Male gender (p = 0.033) and increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.018) were independent predictors of excessive blood loss. Increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.014) and tumor proximity to major vessels (p = 0.002) were significant risk factors for the presence of ≥1 outcome of surgical difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Male gender, increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line and tumor proximity to major vessels represent preoperative risk factors of LDP difficulty.

The Usefulness of a Preoperative Nomogram for Predicting the Probability of Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) represents a challenging procedure with a high conversion rate. A nomogram is a simple statistical predictive tool which is superior to risk groups. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a preoperative nomogram for predicting the probability of conversion from laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LDP. For each patient demographic, pre-intra- and postoperative data were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify the factors significantly influencing the conversion rate. The effect of each factor was weighted using the beta coefficient (β), and a nomogram was built. Finally, a logistic regression between the score and the conversion rate was carried out to calibrate the nomogram.

Results

The conversion rate was 19.0%. At multivariate analysis, female (β =  − 1.8 ± 0.9; P = 0.047) and tail location of the tumor (β =  − 2.1 ± 1.1; P = 0.050) were significantly related to a low probability of conversion. Body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.2 ± 0.1; P = 0.011) and subtotal pancreatectomy (β = 2.4 ± 0.9; P = 0.006) were factors independently related to a high probability of conversion. The nomogram constructed had a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 18 points. The probability of conversion increased significantly starting from a minimum score of 6 points (P = 0.029; conversion probability 14.4%; 95%CI, 1.5–27.3%) up to 16 (P = 0.048; 27.8%; 95%CI, 0.2–48.7%).

Conclusion

The nomogram proposed could serve as an effective preoperative tool capable of assessing the probability of conversion, allowing to take reliable decisions regarding indications and adequate stepwise training program of LDP.

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III).

RESULTS

218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III.

CONCLUSION

LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.

RESULTS

After screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.

Improved oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive left pancreatectomy: Propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive (MIS) left pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly used to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite improved short-term outcomes, no studies have demonstrated long-term benefits over open resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried between 2010 and 2016 for patients with PDAC, grouped by surgical approach (MIS vs open). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical staging, and pathologic staging were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative, short-term oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, both cohorts included 805 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, staging, or preoperative therapy between cohorts. The MIS cohort had a shorter length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 vs 8.5 ± 7.3 days; P < .0001) with the trend toward improved time to chemotherapy (53.9 ± 26.1 vs 57.9 ± 29.9 days; P = .0511) and margin-positive resection rate (15.3% vs 18.9%; P = .0605). Lymph node retrieval and receipt of chemotherapy were similar. The MIS cohort had higher median overall survival (28.0 vs 22.1 months; P = .0067). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest survival for robotic compared with laparoscopic and open LP (41.9 vs 26.6 vs 22.1 months; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety of MIS LP and favorable long-term oncologic outcomes. The improved survival after MIS LP warrants further study with prospective, randomized trials.

Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: Expert consensus guidelines by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

BACKGROUND

The aim was to evaluate the various operative techniques and outcomes used to manage the pancreatic transection plane (or stump) during a left (distal) pancreatectomy and to develop expert consensus guidelines.

METHODS

Evidence-based, clinically relevant questions were discussed and then were circulated among members of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. After agreement on the questions and statements, voting in a 9-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of objective support for each.

RESULTS

Studies using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula including 16 randomized trials were reviewed to generate a series of statements set into 14 domains. There was strong consensus in the following statements: there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after left pancreatectomy between the handsewn and stapler techniques; a stapling technique could not be used in all cases of left pancreatectomy; the use of an energy-based tissue sealant or a chemical sealant device or combinations of these did not impact the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate; there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; and there are 1 or more clinically important, patient-related risk factors associated with the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate. There was weak or conditional agreement on the use of prophylactic somatostatin analogs, stents, stump closure, stump anastomosis, and the role of abdominal drains.

CONCLUSION

Areas of strong consensus suggests a change in clinical practice and priority setting. Eight domains with lower agreement will require novel approaches and large multicenter studies to determine future key areas of practice.

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.

The Main Bottleneck for Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Past Decades: A Population-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND Despite recent advancements in surgical techniques, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, the 5-year survival rate of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains an unsatisfactory ~8%. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data were extracted to identify patients with non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed in the periods 1988-1996 and 2010-2014 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The statistical analyses were performed with the log-rank test, Pearson's chi-square test, propensity score matching, and Cox regression model. RESULTS The hazard ratio (HR) of surgery was reduced from 0.454 to 0.302 in Cox regression modeling, and there was no overlapping about the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of surgery between the 2 periods. The HR values of radiotherapy, which were new prognostic factor for resectable PDAC in 2010-2014, were reduced in both the resectable and unresectable groups. The upgraded chemotherapy regimen reduced the HR values from 0.738 to 0.689 in all PADC patients, and from 0.656 to 0.588 in unresectable PDAC. The log-rank test results showed that advances in surgery significantly improved the median survival from 13 months to 32 months. Radiotherapeutic and chemotherapeutic advancements extended median survival by 12 months and 11 months, respectively, in resectable PDAC. The median survivals were extended by 3 months for both of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in unresectable PDAC. CONCLUSIONS The development of chemotherapy and radiotherapy has been slow, especially for unresectable PDAC. Although advances in surgery contributed significantly to improved survival for resectable PDAC, lack of early diagnostic tools, which lead to low resection rates, remain a barrier for all PDAC patients.

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

Background

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

Results

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

Conclusions

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

Minimally Invasive Surgery is Associated with an Increased Risk of Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism After Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following distal pancreatectomy (DP). However, the influence of operative technique on VTE risk after DP is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the MIS technique versus the open technique and the development of postoperative VTE after DP.

METHODS

Patients who underwent DP from 2014 to 2015 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program pancreas-specific database. Multivariable logistic regression was then used to identify independent associations with the development of postoperative VTE after DP.

RESULTS

A total of 3558 patients underwent DP during this time period. Of these cases, 47.8% (n = 1702) were performed via the MIS approach. After adjusting for significant covariates, the MIS approach was independently associated with the development of any VTE (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.40; p = 0.025), as well as increasing the risk of developing a postdischarge VTE (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.05-3.08; p = 0.033) when compared with the open approach. There was an association between VTE and the development of numerous postoperative complications, including pneumonia, unplanned intubation, need for prolonged mechanical ventilation, and cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the open approach, the MIS approach is associated with higher rates of postoperative VTE in patients undergoing DP. The majority of these events are diagnosed after hospital discharge.

International Validation of Reduced Major Morbidity After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Compared With Open Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the nationwide impact of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) on major morbidity as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated significant reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP compared with ODP, but was not powered to assess potential risk reductions in major morbidity.

METHODS

International cohort study using the American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) (88 centers; 2014-2016) to evaluate the association between surgical approach (MIDP vs ODP) and 30-day composite major morbidity (CMM; death or severe complications) with external model validation using Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group data (17 centers; 2005-2016). Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of nationwide MIDP rates between 0% and 100% on postoperative CMM at conversion rates between 0% and 25%, using estimated marginal effects. A sensitivity analysis tested the impact at various scenarios and patient populations.

RESULTS

Of 2921 ACS-NSQIP patients, 1562 (53%) underwent MIDP with 18% conversion, and 1359 (47%) underwent ODP. MIDP was independently associated with reduced CMM [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.60, P < 0.001], confirmed by external model validation (n = 637, P < 0.003). The association between rising MIDP implementation rates and falling postoperative morbidity was linear between 0% (all ODP) and 100% (all MIDP). The absolute risk reduction for CMM was 11% (95% CI 7.3%-15%) at observed conversion rates and improved to 14% (95% CI 11%-18%) as conversion approached 0%. Similar effects were seen across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This international study predicted a nationwide 11% risk reduction for CMM after MIDP versus ODP, which is likely to improve as conversion rates decrease. These findings confirm secondary outcomes of the recent LEOPARD RCT.

Defining the practice of distal pancreatectomy around the world

BACKGROUND

Best management practices for distal pancreatectomy (DP) have not been conclusively defined. The aim of this study was to analyze the practice of DP worldwide and to compare surgeons' behavior with the best available evidence.

METHODS

A survey assessing management approaches for DP was distributed worldwide, in eight native-language translations. Regions were clustered: North-America, South/Central America, Asia/Australia, and Europe/Africa/Middle East.

RESULTS

Overall, 721/797 (91%) responding surgeons (median age = 48; years of experience = 14) indicated their region, representing six continents and 68 nations. Use of minimally-invasive (MI) techniques is diverse-highest in North-America (p < 0.001). Laparoscopy is the most common MI approach, while robotic techniques are rarely performed outside North-America. The preferred means of pancreatic remnant closure is via stapler - more commonly applied in North-America than in Europe/Africa/Middle East. Management techniques for the remnant and other fistula mitigation strategies display significant regional variability. The use of drains is also diverse, with the biggest disparity between North-American and Asian/Australian surgeons (selective and routine drainers, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There is wide heterogeneity in practices for DP worldwide, which is influenced by the surgeon's region of practice. Variability in practice reflects the lack of solid evidence on the benefit of any given strategy, underlining areas for improvement.

Variation in use of open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and associated outcome metrics in a universal health care system

BACKGROUND

Universal health care (UHC) should ensure equal access to and use of surgery, but few studies have explored variation in UHC systems. The objective was to describe practice of distal pancreatectomy in Norway covered exclusively by an UHC.

METHODS

Data on all patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy from the Norwegian Patient Register over a 5-year period. Age- and gender-adjusted population-based resection rates (adj. per million/yr) for distal pancreatectomy were analysed across 4 regions and outcomes related to splenic salvage rate, hospital stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality risk between regions. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Regional difference exist in terms of absolute numbers, with the majority of procedures done in one region (n = 331; 59.7%). Regional variation persisted for age- and gender-adjusted population-rates, with highest rate at 23.8/million/yr and lowest rate at 13.5/mill/yr (for a 176% relative difference; or an absolute difference of +10.3 resections/million/yr). Overall, a lapDP instead of an open DP was 3.5 times more likely in SouthEast compared to all other regions combined (lapDP rate: 83% vrs 24%, respectively; OR 15.4, 95% c.i. 10.1-23.5; P < 0.001). The splenic salvage rate was lower in SouthEast (19.9%) compared to all other regions (average 26.5%; highest in Central-region at 37.0%; P = 0.010 for trend). Controlled for other factors in multivariate regression, 'region' of surgery remained significantly associated with laparoscopic access.

CONCLUSION

Despite a universal health care system, considerable variation exists in resection rates, use of laparoscopy and splenic salvage rates across regions.

Full Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: Safety and Feasibility Analysis of a Multicenter Cohort of 236 Patients

Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.

A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is increasingly done by laparoscopy but data from routine practise are scarce. We describe practise in a national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Patient Register of all patients undergoing DP from 2012 to 2016. National resection rates were analysed. Short-term outcomes include length of stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 554 procedures, 327 (59%) were laparoscopic. Median age was 66 years (iqr 55-72) and 52% were women. Resection rates increased during the period for all DP (from 1.76 to 2.39 per 100.000/yr), and significantly for laparoscopic DP (adjusted R-square 0.858; P = 0.015). Elderly patients had more resection (r₂ = 0.11; P = 0.019). Splenectomy (n = 427; 77%) was less likely with laparoscopy (laparoscopy 72% vs open 84%, respectively; OR 0.64, 95% c.i. 0.42-0.97; P = 0.035). Multivisceral resections occurred more often in open DP (5.3% vs 1.2% for laparoscopy, OR 4.51, 1.44-14.2; P = 0.008). Reoperation occurred in 34 (6%), readmission in 109 (20%), and mortality in 8 (1.4%). Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSION

Use of DP increases in the population, particularly in the elderly, with use of laparoscopic access and an association with a reduced hospital stay.

Pancreatic cancer surgical management

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a dismal prognosis and surgery is the only chance for cure. However, only few of the patients have localized tumor eligible for curative complete resection. Preoperative management and well-staging of the disease are the cornerstone for appropriate surgery and major issues to define the best therapeutic strategy. This review focuses on the surgical and optimal perioperative management of PDAC and summarizes updates data on the subject.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Distal pancreatectomy is well suited to the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides the same postoperative recovery advantages reputed to minimal access surgery. However, there have been fears as to the safety of LDP in terms of life-threatening intra-operative events and post-operative complications, adequate carcinological outcomes as compared to traditional (open) distal pancreatectomy (ODP) when performed for cancer, as well as to whether the laparoscopic approach is well adapted to the variety of diseases that may affect the pancreas (ranging from trauma to benign or malignant disease) and whether the minimal access approach is well adapted to perform pancreatic surgery safely in the obese, the elderly or the frail. In this review of the literature, we sought to determine whether LDP was as safe, provided the same oncological outcomes and was applicable to all diseases involving the body and tail of the pancreas, and to particular patient characteristics, compared to the traditional open approach. Last we looked at cost issues. We concluded that this review of the literature allowed to state that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe for a wide range of diseases, both benign and malignant. Morbidity, mortality, and probably, also, carcinological outcomes are comparable to open surgery. The overall costs are similar but the advantages of minimal access surgery make it the preferred approach, once the surgical expertise is acquired and present.

Risk-stratified clinical pathways decrease the duration of hospitalization and costs of perioperative care after pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is associated with adverse events, increased duration of stay and hospital costs. We developed perioperative care pathways stratified by postoperative pancreatic fistula risk with the aims of minimizing variations in care, improving quality, and decreasing costs.

STUDY DESIGN

Three unique risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways-low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, and distal pancreatectomy were developed and implemented. Consecutive patients treated after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways were compared with patients treated immediately prior. Duration of stay, rates of perioperative adverse effects, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission, as well as the associated costs of care, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median hospital stay after pancreatectomy decreased from 10 to 6 days after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways (P < .001), and the median cost of index hospitalization decreased by 22%. Decreased changes in median hospital stay and costs of hospitalization were observed in association with low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy (P < .05) and distal pancreatectomy (P < .05), but not high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. The rates of 90-day adverse events, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, discharge to a facility other than home, or readmission did not change after implementation.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways decreased median stay and cost of index hospitalization after pancreatectomy without unfavorably affecting rates of perioperative adverse events or readmission, or discharge disposition. Outcomes were most favorably improved for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Additional work is necessary to decrease the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, minimize variability, and improve outcomes after high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy.

Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison

Interest in robotic pancreatectomy has been greatly increasing over the last decade. However, evidence supporting the benefits of robotic over open pancreatectomy is still outstanding. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreatectomy compared with the conventional open surgical approach. Propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance age, sex, BMI, ASA, tumor size, and malignancy of 17 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 12 pancreatic enucleations (PE), and 28 distal pancreatectomies (DP); and was compared with the open standard approach. Robotic PD was associated with longer operative time (594 vs. 413 min; p = 0.03) and decreased blood loss (190 vs. 394 ml; p = 0.001). Robotic PE showed a lower mean length of hospital stay (8.4 vs. 12.8 days; p = 0.04) and, in addition, robotic DP showed less blood loss (175 vs. 375 ml; p = 0.01), less severe morbidities (7.14 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.02), and a reduced mean length of hospital stay (8.9 vs. 15.1; p = 0.001). Overall, conversion rate was 4 (7%). Robotic pancreatectomy is as safe and effective as the standard open surgical approach with reduced blood loss in PD and DP, length of hospital stay in PE and DP, and severe morbidity in DP.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy: rationale and technical considerations

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has had significant adoption in the United States over the past decade. Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a type of minimally invasive technique which affords greater dexterity and visualization compared to traditional laparoscopy. In addition to standard distal pancreatectomy procedures with or without splenectomy, the use of robotic surgical systems has been efficacious in performing more complex techniques such as radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) or spleen-preservation. There are important technical considerations to performing robotic distal pancreatectomy procedures which differ from other minimally invasive approaches. The purpose of this report is to describe the rationale and technical considerations for implementation of robotic distal pancreatectomy procedures in clinical practice.

Recent Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic cancer surgery is a continuously evolving field. Despite tremendous advances in perioperative outcomes, pancreatic resection is still associated with substantial morbidity, and mortality is not nil. Institutional caseload is a well-established determinant of patient outcomes, and centralization to experienced centers is essential to the safety and oncological appropriateness of the resection. Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly applied for pancreatic resection, even in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the level of evidence in this field remains low. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears potentially beneficial towards some perioperative outcomes, although its oncological results remain incompletely studied. Data regarding perioperative and oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's resection) is even less mature, but suggest that similar results as the open approach can be achieved in selected, high-volume centers. Conversely, its indiscriminate adoption by inexperienced surgeons and institutions has potential deleterious effects given its steep learning curve. Newer neoadjuvant treatment protocols display enhanced ability to downstage advanced tumors, increasing candidates for potentially curative surgery. Conversely, putative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with technically resectable tumors have not been reliably demonstrated and its optimal indications remain highly controversial.

Minimally invasive pancreatic cancer surgery: What is the current evidence?

Surgery remains the only option to cure pancreatic cancer. Although the use of laparoscopy in oncology is rapidly growing worldwide, its efficacy in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. A number of studies have compared outcomes of minimally invasive and open pancreatic resections. However, they are mostly non-randomized trials including relatively small groups of patients. In addition, most of these studies were conducted in high-volume pancreatic centres. It seems that despite longer operative time, laparoscopy may be beneficial in terms of morbidity, blood loss and hospital stay. Thus far, very little is known about the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our aim was to review current evidence for the use of minimally invasive techniques in patients with pancreatic malignancy.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.