Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

New Frontiers in Pancreatic Cancer Management: Current Treatment Options and the Emerging Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ranks among the 15 most prevalent cancers globally, characterized by aggressive growth and late-stage diagnosis. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques have redefined the classification of pancreatic PDAC into resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. While surgery remains the most effective treatment, only 20% of patients are eligible at diagnosis, necessitating innovative strategies to improve outcomes. Therefore, traditional treatment paradigms, primarily surgical resection for eligible patients, are increasingly supplemented by neoadjuvant therapies (NAT), which include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of both. By administering systemic therapy prior to surgery, NAT aims to reduce tumor size and increase the feasibility of complete surgical resection, thus enhancing overall survival rates and potentially allowing more patients to undergo curative surgeries. Recent advances in treatment protocols, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel, now integral to NAT strategies, have shown promising results in increasing the proportion of patients eligible for surgery by effectively reducing tumor size and addressing micrometastatic disease. Additionally, they offer improved response rates and survival benefits compared to traditional regimes. Despite these advancements, the role of NAT continues to evolve, necessitating ongoing research to optimize treatment regimens, minimize adverse effects, and identify patient populations that would benefit most from these approaches. Through a detailed analysis of current literature and recent clinical trials, this review highlights the transformative potential of NAT in managing PDAC, especially in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced stages, promising a shift towards more personalized and effective management strategies for PDAC.

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

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.

Recovery of health-related quality of life after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Limited data comparing recovery of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are available. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of laparoscopy on postoperative HRQOL after DP using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent DP (2020-2022) enrolled in a prospective clinical trial were reviewed. Patients completed PROMIS-29 plus 2 profile preoperatively, at postoperative day (POD) 15, 30, 90, and 180. Linear regression analysis adjusting for confounders including preoperative PROMIS scores, age, gender, ASA score, diagnosis, and multivisceral resection was used to estimate mean between-group differences (MD) in postoperative PROMIS domains T scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 202 patients (118 laparoscopic, 86 open) underwent DP (median age 66 years, pancreatic cancer 41%, multivisceral resection 10%, median LOS 6 days). At POD15, LDP was associated with higher physical function (MD 5.6) and participation in social roles and activities scores (MD 3.8), reduced fatigue (MD - 2.7) and sleep disturbance (MD - 3.8) compared to ODP. At POD30, LDP patients had higher physical function (MD 5.2) and participation in social roles and activities scores (MD 6.0), reduced fatigue (MD - 3.5), and anxiety (MD - 4.0) compared to ODP. No between-group differences were found in HRQoL domains at POD90 and 180. Six months after surgery, the proportions of patients who had not recovered to preoperative physical function, participation in social roles and activities, fatigue, pain interference, sleep disturbance, cognitive function, depression, and anxiety were 31%, 31%, 28%, 20%, 15%, 14%, 8%, and 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to PROMIS, LDP resulted in improved physical and social functioning and reduced anxiety and fatigue up to 30 days after surgery compared to ODP. At 6 months after surgery, recovery of physical domains is still incomplete in up to 30% of patients.

Nationwide analysis of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Utilization of minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has increased. While unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIDP is associated with inferior short-term outcomes, the long-term consequences of conversion have not been adequately examined.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing MIDP were selected from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) and subdivided based on the occurrence of unplanned conversion. Post-operative outcomes and overall survival (OS) were examined. Conversion was additionally compared to a matched group of planned open resections.

RESULTS

Among 592 patients undergoing attempted MIDP, unplanned conversion occurred in 23.1%. Despite increased 90-day mortality among patients experiencing conversion, there was no difference in median OS between groups (25.0 vs 27.8 months, p = 0.095). For patients undergoing conversion, post-operative outcomes and long-term survival were similar when compared to a propensity-matched group of patients undergoing planned open resection. On multivariable analysis, treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.63) and a robotic approach (OR 0.50) were both significantly associated with completed MIDP.

CONCLUSION

Despite inferior post-operative outcomes compared to successful MIDP, unplanned conversion did not result in significantly reduced long term survival. MIDP can be attempted selectively but treatment at experienced centers via a robotic approach should be considered.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

External validation of fistula risk scores for postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Fistula risk scores such as distal fistula risk scores and DISPAIR have been recently developed to assess the risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. This study aimed to validate these models externally using a large-scale Chinese cohort.

METHODS

The study enrolled adult patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy at a high-volume single center between January 2011 and December 2021. The clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was defined as grade B/C, according to the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve.

RESULTS

Among 653 eligible patients, 126 (19.3%) suffered from clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas. Independent predictors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas included body mass index, diabetes mellitus, pancreatic thickness at both neck and transection sites, main pancreatic duct diameter, and soft pancreas. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk increased with increasing score severity. All 3 prediction models showed acceptable discrimination, with area under the curve values of preoperative distal fistula risk score at 0.723 (95% confidence interval 0.687-0.757), intraoperative distal fistula risk score at 0.737 (95% confidence interval 0.701-0.770), and DISPAIR at 0.721 (95% confidence interval 0.685-0.755). No significant differences were found among them.

CONCLUSION

Distal fistula risk scores and DISPAIR are useful tools for predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy, highlighting their importance in guiding surgical approach decisions and mitigating strategies against this complication in clinical practice.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Yields Superior Outcomes Compared to Laparoscopic Technique: A Single Surgeon Experience of 123 Consecutive Cases

Technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), in comparison to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), may translate to high conversion rates and morbidity. LDP and RDP procedures performed between December 2008 and January 2023 in our tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centres were analysed and compared with regard to short-term outcomes. A total of 62 consecutive LDP cases and 61 RDP cases were performed. There was more conversion to open surgeries in the laparoscopic group compared with the robotic group (21.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). The LDP group also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (43.5% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major complication or pancreatic fistular after operations (p = 0.20 and p = 0.71, respectively). For planned spleen-preserving operations, the RDP group had a shorter mean operative time (147 min vs. 194 min, p = 0.015) and a reduced total length of hospital stay compared with the LDP group (4 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.0002). The failure rate for spleen preservation was 0% in RDP and 20% (n = 5/25) in the LDP group (p = 0.009). RDP offered a better method for splenic preservation with Kimura's technique compared with LDP to avoid the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices related to ligation and division of splenic pedicles. RDP should be the standard operation for the resection of pancreatic tumours at the body and tail of the pancreas without involving the celiac axis or common hepatic artery.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database.

BACKGROUND

Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study

OBJECTIVE

Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain.

METHODS

This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies

BACKGROUND

We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS): does adrenalectomy alter outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) has oncologic superiority compared to a standard distal pancreatectomy (DP). For tumors invading into the adrenal gland, a posterior RAMPS takes the left adrenal gland en bloc with the pancreas specimen. The aim of this analysis is to determine whether addition of adrenalectomy alters the outcomes of DP.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Procedure-Targeted Pancreatectomy database was accessed from 2014 to 2019. Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing posterior RAMPS were compared to patients having a standard DP. 30-day outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

3467 PDAC patients underwent DP; 159 (4.6%) also had an adrenalectomy. Posterior RAMPS patients had higher T stage (T3-4 77% vs. 58%, p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, posterior RAMPS patients had worse perioperative outcomes including more transfusions (OR 2.78, p < 0.01), serious morbidity (OR 1.45, p = 0.04), prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.36, p < 0.05), and less optimal pancreatic surgery (OR 0.61, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with adrenalectomy (posterior RAMPS) is associated with worse perioperative outcomes compared to a standard distal pancreatectomy. Improved oncologic outcomes must be weighed against higher perioperative morbidity when selecting patients for this more extensive surgical resection.

Risk factor analysis and prediction of postoperative clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a serious complication. In the present study, we aimed to identify the risk factors associated with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and establish a nomogram model for predicting CR-POPF after DP.

METHODS

In total, 115 patients who underwent DP at the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command between January 2005 and December 2020 were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent risk factors associated with CR-POPF. Then, a nomogram was formulated based on the results of multivariable logistic regression analysis. The predictive performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses were used to validate the clinical application value of the model.

RESULTS

The incidence of CR-POPF was 33.0% (38/115) in the present study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the following variables as independent risk factors for POPF: body mass index (BMI) (OR 4.658, P = 0.004), preoperative albumin level (OR 7.934, P = 0.001), pancreatic thickness (OR 1.256, P = 0.003) and pancreatic texture (OR 3.143, P = 0.021). We created a nomogram by incorporating the above mentioned risk factors. The nomogram model showed better predictive value, with a concordance index of 0.842, sensitivity of 0.710, and specificity of 0.870 when compared to each risk factor. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses also indicated that the nomogram conferred a high clinical net benefit.

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram could accurately and objectively predict the risk of postoperative CR-POPF in individuals who underwent DP, which could help clinicians with early identification of patients who might develop CR-POPF and early development of a suitable fistula mitigation strategy and postoperative management.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer in patients with radical subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

After radical subtotal gastrectomy (RSTG) for stomach cancer, the remnant stomach is supposed to be perfused through the short gastric vessels. What if a patient who received previous RSTG is diagnosed with resectable distal pancreatic cancer? Can radical distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) be performed safely without ischemic damage to the remnant stomach? Unfortunately, there are limited studies on this specific clinical issue. Notably, in spite of rare clinical presentation, it is expected to increase due to prolonged survival of patients with resected gastric cancer. Therefore, we aimed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the radical DPS in patients with previous RSTG. In this study, we investigated perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of DPS for left-sided pancreatic cancer in patients with previous RSTG.

The contribution of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy videos on YouTube to the learning curve in the COVID-19 pandemic

There is no standardization in videos uploaded to Youtube. Were the videos capable of contributing to adequate technical quality and surgical training? We are aiming to answer these questions in this paper. It is a cross-sectional study. In January 2022, we searched the Youtube platform using the keyword "distal pancreatectomy." The substantiality, transparency, reliability, quality, popularity and educational values of the video content were evaluated after exclusion criteria. These parameters were evaluated using we the modified Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria, Global Quality Score (GQS), Video Power Index, modified laparoscopic pancreatectomy scoring system. The videos uploaded after the pandemic had a statistically significant higher GQS score (P < .001). Video Power Index, like GQS, had a statistically significant difference before and after the pandemic. (P = .046). There was no significant difference in the evaluation of the reliability and substantiality. Until the development of Youtube videos is completed, peer-reviewed, more reliable and content-rich online education platforms should be preferred in the first place. Care should be taken to watch selected videos on Youtube videos.

Frailty and surgical outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer: Integration of geriatric assessment and prehabilitation into surgical practice for vulnerable patients

As life expectancy increases, the older population continues to grow rapidly, resulting in increased requirement for surgery for older patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Older individuals represent a heterogeneous group in terms of physiological reserves, co-morbidity, cognitive impairment, and disability. Owing to the lack of treatment guidelines for vulnerable patients with gastrointestinal cancer, these patients are more likely to be at risk of undertreatment or overtreatment. Hence, the identification of frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer would improve cancer treatment outcomes. Although there is no standardized geriatric assessment tool, a growing body of research has shown associations of frailty with adverse postoperative outcomes and poor prognosis after resection of gastrointestinal tract and hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers. Emerging evidence suggests that prehabilitation, which includes exercise and nutritional support, can improve preoperative functional capacity, postoperative recovery, and surgical outcomes, particularly in frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer. We reviewed major geriatric assessment tools for identification of frail patients and summarized clinical studies on frailty and surgical outcomes, as well as prehabilitation or rehabilitation in gastrointestinal tract and hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers. The integration of preoperative geriatric assessment and prehabilitation of frail patients in clinical practice may improve surgical outcomes. In addition, improving preoperative vulnerability and preventing functional decline after surgery is important in providing favorable long-term survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Further clinical trials are needed to examine the effects of minimally invasive surgery, and chemotherapy in frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

[Surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer-What is new?]

The incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is continuously increasing and will become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the USA by 2030. With a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 10% the prognosis remains poor. So far surgical tumor resection remains the only curative treatment option, which is now partially supported by multimodal neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy concepts. Due to the aggressive tumor biology patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in particular can profit from these multimodal therapy concepts. Additionally, in recent years surgical treatment was optimized, the criteria for tumor resectablity were defined and minimally invasive surgery was widely introduced. This review article summarizes the newest developments and the new German S3 guidelines concerning surgery of pancreatic cancer.

Postoperative Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Abutting the Pancreas in the Left Upper Quadrant

Background

En bloc resection of the tumor with adjacent organs is recommended for localized retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). However, resection of the pancreas is controversial because it may cause serious complications, such as pancreatic fistula or bleeding. Thus, we evaluated the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy (DP) in pancreas-abutting RPS of the left upper quadrant (LUQ).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who underwent surgery for RPS between September 2001 and April 2020. We selected 150 patients with all or part of their tumor located in the LUQ on preoperative computed tomography. Eighty-six patients who had tumors abutting the pancreas were finally enrolled in our study.

Results

Fifty-three patients (53/86; 61.6%) were included in the non-DP group, and 33 patients (33/86; 38.4%) were included in the DP group. Total postoperative complications and complication rates for those Clavien–Dindo grade 3 or higher were similar between the non-DP group and DP group (p = 0.290 and p = 0.550). In the DP group, grade B pancreatic fistulae occurred in 18.2% (6/33) of patients, but grade C pancreatic fistulae were absent, and microscopic pancreatic invasion was noted in 42.4% (14/33) of patients. During multivariate analysis, microscopic pancreatic invasion was deemed a risk factor for local recurrence (p = 0.029). However, there were no significant differences on preoperative computed tomography findings between the pancreatic invasion and non-invasion groups.

Conclusion

DP is a reasonable procedure for pancreas-abutting RPS located at the LUQ when both complications and complete resection are considered.

Updated Principles of Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (pNETs): What Every Surgeon Needs to Know

Simple Summary

In this narrative review, we update the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) and highlight key elements in view of the recent literature. These tumours are rare and suffer from a lack of data and randomized controlled trials. The pNETs management is difficult due to their heterogeneity and the risks associated with pancreatic surgery. Innovative managements such as “watch and wait” strategies, parenchymal sparing surgery and minimally invasive approach are emerging. The correct use of all these therapeutic options requires a good selection of patients but also a constant update of knowledge.

Abstract

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) represent 1 to 2% of all pancreatic neoplasm with an increasing incidence. They have a varied clinical, biological and radiological presentation, depending on whether they are sporadic or genetic in origin, whether they are functional or non-functional, and whether there is a single or multiple lesions. These pNETs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage with locoregional lymph nodes invasion or distant metastases. In most cases, the gold standard curative treatment is surgical resection of the pancreatic tumour, but the postoperative complications and functional consequences are not negligible. Thus, these patients should be managed in specialised high-volume centres with multidisciplinary discussion involving surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and pathologists. Innovative managements such as “watch and wait” strategies, parenchymal sparing surgery and minimally invasive approach are emerging. The correct use of all these therapeutic options requires a good selection of patients but also a constant update of knowledge. The aim of this work is to update the surgical management of pNETs and to highlight key elements in view of the recent literature.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Simple Summary

Surgery is the only potential cure for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and should always be combined with adjuvant chemotherapy or other multimodal treatment. Besides the advances in such multimodal approaches, there has been substantial progress in surgical techniques to especially address advanced resections. These techniques include specific operative steps, such as ‘artery first’ or ‘uncinate first’ approaches as well as techniques that allow safe vascular resection and reconstruction to achieve radical tumor removal. Most recently, also minimally-invasive and robotic approaches have been adopted for pancreatic cancer surgery; however, there is no high-level evidence on these evolving techniques especially with regards to long-term results compared to conventional surgical techniques.

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents an aggressive tumor of the digestive system with still low five-year survival of less than 10%. Although there are improvements for multimodal therapy of PDAC, surgery still remains the effective way to treat the disease. Combined with adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment, pancreatic surgery is able to enhance the five-year survival up to around 20%. However, pancreatic resection is always associated with a high risk of complications and regarded as one of the most complex fields in abdominal surgery. This review gives a summary on the surgical treatment for PDAC based on the current literature with a special focus on resection techniques.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents an aggressive tumor of the digestive system with still low five-year survival of less than 10%. Although there are improvements for multimodal therapy of PDAC, surgery still remains the effective way to treat the disease. Combined with adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment, pancreatic surgery is able to enhance the five-year survival up to around 20%. However, pancreatic resection is always associated with a high risk of complications and regarded as one of the most complex fields in abdominal surgery. This review gives a summary on the surgical treatment for PDAC based on the current literature with a special focus on resection techniques.