Pancreatic resection in the era of laparoscopy: State of Art. A systematic review

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.

Comparisons of short-term and long-term results between laparoscopic between open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The efficacy of pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors is controversial. The study aims to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in the treatment of pancreatic tumors through systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science databases were searched for clinical studies on the treatment of pancreatic tumors with LPD and OPD. The end time for the searches was 20 July 2022. Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen the articles, the Cochrane manual was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and the stata15.0 software was used for statistical analysis of the indicators. Results: In total, 16 articles were included, including two randomized controlled trials and 14 retrospective studies. Involving a total of 4416 patients, 1275 patients were included in the LPD group and 3141 patients in the OPD group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that: the operation time of LPD was longer than that of OPD [WMD = 56.14,95% CI (38.39,73.89), p = 0.001]; the amount of intraoperative blood loss of LPD was less than that of OPD [WMD = -120.82,95% CI (-169.33, -72.30), p = 0.001]. No significant difference was observed between LPD and OPD regarding hospitalization time [WMD = -0.5,95% CI (-1.35, 0.35), p = 0.250]. No significant difference was observed regarding postoperative complications [RR = 0.96,95% CI (0.86,1.07, p = 0.463]. And there was no significant difference regarding 1-year OS and 3-year OS: 1-year OS [RR = 1.02,95% CI (0.97,1.08), p = 0.417], 3-year OS [RR = 1.10 95% CI (0.75, 1.62), p = 0.614%]. Conclusion: In comparison with OPD, LPD leads to less blood loss but longer operation time, therefore the bleeding rate per unit time of LPD is less than that of OPD. LPD has obvious advantages. With the increase of clinical application of LPD, the usage of LPD in patients with pancreatic cancer has very good prospect. Due to the limitations of this paper, in future studies, more attention should be paid to high-quality, multi-center, randomized controlled studies.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Adverse Impact of Intraoperative Conversion on the Postoperative Course Following Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Enucleation for benign or borderline tumors of the pancreas: comparing open and minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of minimally invasive enucleation (ME) for benign or borderline pancreatic tumors is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ME and open enucleation (OE).

METHODS

All patients undergoing pancreatic enucleation between October 2001 and January 2020 were analyzed from a prospective database. Consecutive patients undergoing ME were compared with patients undergoing OE in a matched-pair analysis (1:2).

RESULTS

Of 358 patients, undergoing enucleation, 120 matched patients (ME n = 40, OE n = 80) were included. Patients undergoing ME had less blood loss (median 50 vs. 100 ml, P = 0.025) and had a higher proportion of patients discharged by 7 days, than patients undergoing OE (38% vs. 18%, P = 0.016). The rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and major complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3) were similar between both groups. Risk factor analysis for POPF B/C showed no significant parameters associated with POPF, including tumor size and proximity to the main pancreatic duct.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional OE, ME reduces the amount of bleeding and allows earlier postoperative discharge, without increasing the incidence of major complications. Thus, minimally invasive enucleation should be considered for benign tumors of the pancreas when technically and oncologically feasible.

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Center Comparison to Laparoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for pancreatic disease has been well demonstrated; however, there is scarce literature on long-term oncologic outcomes. We compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes between robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) and laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated left pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2009 to 2019 in a tertiary institution. Baseline characteristics, operative and oncologic outcomes were compared between RLP and LLP.

RESULTS

There were 75 minimally invasive left pancreatectomy cases for pancreatic adenocarcinoma identified of which 33 cases were done robotically and 42 laparoscopically. Baseline characteristics demonstrated no difference in gender, age, BMI, T stage, N stage, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant chemotherapy. An analysis of operative variables demonstrated no difference in blood loss, increased duration, and higher lymph node yield with RLP (20 vs 12; P = .0029). Postoperatively, both cohorts had 30% pancreatic fistulas and no difference in complications. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), 30- or 90-day readmission rates, or 90-day mortality. The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated similar R0 resections (RLP: 72% vs OLP: 67%), recurrence rates (RLP: 36% vs OLP: 41%), and time to recurrence (RLP: 324 vs OLP 218 days). There was increased survival in the RLP cohort that was not significant (32 vs 19 months).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates RLP is at least equivalent to LLP in perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher lymph node yield and trend toward an improved survival suggests oncologic advantage. Randomized controlled studies are needed to clarify benefit.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Conversion to open laparotomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: lessons from a single-center experience in 70 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing conversion from laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open surgery, and the effect of such conversion on the outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 70 consecutive patients undergoing LDP. The primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery during LDP. The secondary endpoints were determining the reasons for conversion to open surgery, with detailed analyses of these cases and a comparison of the surgical outcome with and without conversion.

RESULTS

Seven patients (10%) required conversion to open surgery during LDP. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was identified as a risk factor for conversion (p = 0.010). The reasons for conversion included technical difficulty (two bleeding, one severe adhesion) and pancreatic stump-related issues (two margin-positive, two stapling failures). Although the overall morbidity rate (29 vs. 11%, p = 0.48) and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (14 vs. 5%, p = 0.82) were no different for the patients with or without open conversion, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the former (median 15 vs. 10 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Careful preoperative assessment is required when planning LDP for PDAC. Although conversion to open surgery does not result in failure of LDP, efforts to reduce the duration of postoperative hospital stay and the occurrence of complications are desirable to improve the outcome of LDP.

Extremely high white blood cell counts on postoperative day 1 do not predict severe complications following distal pancreatectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Distal pancreatectomy(DP) is associated with high morbidity. In clinical practice, postoperative white blood cell(WBC) counts are useful indicators of infection complications. The aim of this study was to determine the relevance of extremely high postoperative day (POD)1 WBC counts after DP and their relationship to perioperative outcomes.

Methods

From December 2005 to December 2016, data from patients who had open or minimally invasive DP surgery (robot or laparoscopy, MIS) for benign or borderline malignant tumors were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into groups based on POD1 WBC count (>20K, High and <20K, Low) for comparisons.

Results

Twelve patients (4.6%) were categorized into the High group. There were significant differences in age (p=0.019), BMI (p=0.010), and spleen-preserving rate (p=0.002) between the High and Low groups. In binary logistic regression analysis, the risk factors for severe complication was age (p=0.032) and open DP (p=0.005), not POD1 WBC count.

Conclusions

Extremely high WBC count after POD1 after DP was not associated with severe complications, but was associated with splenectomy. Surgical methods and age were associated with severe complications.

Successful Treatment of Hypokalemic Rhabdomyolysis Caused by a Pancreatic VIPoma: A Case Report

BACKGROUND VIPomas are rare neuroendocrine tumors typically located in the pancreas. The majority of cases autonomously secret vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), which can result in profuse, refractory, watery diarrhea. The fluid and electrolyte imbalance can progress to dehydration and profound hypokalemia, resulting in the watery diarrhea, hypokalemia, achlorhydria (WDHA) syndrome. One previous case of a pancreatic VIPoma progressing to hypokalemic rhabdomyolysis has been described. CASE REPORT A 33-year-old woman presented with 3 months of progressive, refractory diarrhea and weakness. Her serum VIP level was elevated and imaging discovered a mass in the region of the pancreatic tail. Laparoscopic partial pancreatic resection was performed and a 3.7-cm diameter, solitary stage T2 N0 M0, well-differentiated carcinoma was removed. CONCLUSIONS A high index of suspicion is important when diagnosing chronic diarrhea. Minimally invasive surgery is an option in the surgical treatment of pancreatic VIPoma.

Stepwise implementation of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Case series of a single centre's experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery still represents a challenge for surgeons. However, in recent decades the experience is expanding. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is safe, feasible and worthwhile. This study analyses the first 100 consecutive LPRs in our centre.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of the first 100 LPRs in a single supra-regional Belgian centre, performed between January 2012 and January 2019. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. All procedures were performed laparoscopically by two attending surgeons, specialized in minimally invasive and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

Of 100 procedures, 62 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies (LPD) and 36 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) were performed, along with 1 enucleation and 1 central pancreatectomy. Indication was malignancy in 70%. Conversion rate was 24,2% in LPD and 11% in LDP. Median operative time was 330 min (IQR 300-360) in LPD and 150 min (IQR 142.5-210) in LDP. Median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-487.5) in LPD and 150 mL (IQR 50-500) in LDP, transfusion rate was 22.6% and 8.3% respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 13 days (IQR 10-19.25) in LPD and 9 days (IQR 9-14) in LDP. R0 resection rate was 88.6% (62/70). Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) was 12%. Thirty-day mortality was 0%, 90-day mortality was 2%.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that LPR is a feasible and safe alternative to open pancreatic surgery. Safe implementation with a clear strategy is fundamental to gain experience and overcome the learning curve of this technically demanding procedures.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) performed through the laparoscopic route or by open surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic PD is being progressively performed in selected patients.

METHODS

An open-label single-center RCT was conducted between February 2013 and September 2017. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were operative time, transfusion requirements, specific pancreatic complications (pancreatic or biliary fistula, pancreatic hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, comprehensive complication index (CCI) score, poor quality outcome (PQO), and the quality of pathologic resection. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat basis.

RESULTS

Of 86 patients assessed for PD, 66 were randomized (34 laparoscopic approach, 32 open surgery). Conversion to an open procedure was needed in 8 (23.5%) patients. Laparoscopic versus open PD was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (median 13.5 vs. 17 d; P = 0.024) and longer median operative time (486 vs. 365 min; P = 0.0001). The laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly better outcomes regarding Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (5 vs. 11 patients; P = 0.04), CCI score (20.6 vs. 29.6; P = 0.038), and PQO (10 vs. 14 patients; P = 0.041). No significant differences in transfusion requirements, pancreas-specific complications, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, and resection margins between the two approaches were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD versus open surgery is associated with a shorter LOS and a more favorable postoperative course while maintaining oncological standards of a curative-intent surgical resection.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN93168938.

Long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic techniques in pancreatic cancer

The laparoscopic technique in distal pancreatic resection (LDP) has been widely accepted, and outcome data support the hypothesis that survival is improved, partly due to improved postoperative safety and recovery, thus optimizing treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. But laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD or Whipple-procedures) has spread more slowly, due to the complexity of the procedure. Surgical safety has been a problem in hospitals with low patient volume, resulting in raised postoperative mortality, requiring careful monitoring of outcome during the surgical learning curve. Robotic assistance is expected to improve surgical safety, but data on long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic Whipple procedures with or without robotic assistance is scarce. Future research should still focus surgical safety, but most importantly long term outcome, recorded as recurrence at maximal follow up or - at best - overall long term survival (OS). Available data show median survival above 2.5 years, five year OS more than 30% after LDP even in series with suboptimal adjuvant chemotherapy. Also after LPD, long term survival is reported equal to or longer than open resection. However, surgical safety during the learning curve of LPD is a problem, which hopefully can be facilitated by robotic assistance. Patient reported outcome should also be an endpoint in future trials, including patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Advances in surgery for pancreatic cancer

Over the past 135 years, the field of pancreatic surgery for treatment of pancreatic malignancies has been a challenge to the surgical community. Originally filled with unacceptably high morbidity and mortality, these obstacles have been overcome through the work of numerous great surgeons in recent decades. Today, despite the improved safety of operating on the pancreas, patients still suffer from high rates of malignant recurrence and poor overall survival. Recent advances in pancreatic surgery aim to further improve the morbidity of these operations while increasing the number of patients who are both candidates for surgical resection and those who receive complete resections. This review focuses on recent literature describing the pros and cons of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery and the risks and benefits of vascular reconstruction to improve resectability. Both topics are currently debated amongst pancreatic surgeons and this article summarizes the varied viewpoints and their impact on outcomes in pancreas cancer surgery.

Oncological outcome of laparoscopically assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma in a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resections of the pancreatic head are increasingly performed. Several studies show that they are comparable to open operations in terms of postoperative morbidity. However, since a substantial proportion of pancreatic head resections are necessary for pancreatic adenocarcinoma the oncologic safety and outcome of minimally invasive operations is of interest. In this study we evaluated oncologic outcome and survival after laparoscopically assisted pancreatic head resection for ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Perioperative and oncological outcome of sixty-two laparoscopically assisted pancreatic head resections for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma performed between 2010 and 2016 was compared to outcome of 278 open resections between 2001 and 2016 in a retrospective study. Data was continuously collected in a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (477 vs. 428 min. p < 0.001). Tumor size, lymph node yield and lymph node state and need of portal vein resection were comparable. There was a higher rate of free resection margins in the laparoscopic group (87% vs. 71%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in postoperative mortality and morbidity. Patients with laparoscopic resection stayed in hospital significantly shorter (median 14 vs. 16 days, p < 0.003). Postoperative survival after 5 years was not different in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopically assisted resection of adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head is equal to open resection concerning oncologic outcome and actuarial survival. However, minimally invasive resection shortened the hospital stay. However, further evaluations with a longer follow up time are needed.

Perioperative nutrition and enhanced recovery after surgery in gastrointestinal cancer patients. A position paper by the ESSO task force in collaboration with the ERAS society (ERAS coalition)

Malnutrition in cancer patients - in both prevalence and degree - depends primarily on tumor stage and site. Preoperative malnutrition in surgical patients is a frequent problem and is associated with prolonged hospital stay, a higher rate of postoperative complications, higher re-admission rates, and a higher incidence of postoperative death. Given the focus on the cancer and its cure, nutrition is often neglected or under-evaluated, and this despite the availability of international guidelines for nutritional care in cancer patients and the evidence that nutritional deterioration negatively affects survival. Inadequate nutritional support for cancer patients should be considered ethically unacceptable; prompt nutritional support must be guaranteed to all cancer patients, as it can have many clinical and economic advantages. Patients undergoing multimodal oncological care are at particular risk of progressive nutritional decline, and it is essential to minimize the nutritional/metabolic impact of oncological treatments and to manage each surgical episode within the context of an enhanced recovery pathway. In Europe, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and routine nutritional assessment are only partially implemented because of insufficient awareness among health professionals of nutritional problems, a lack of structured collaboration between surgeons and clinical nutrition specialists, old dogmas, and the absence of dedicated resources. Collaboration between opinion leaders dedicated to ERAS from both the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and the ERAS Society was born with the aim of promoting nutritional assessment and perioperative nutrition with and without an enhanced recovery program. The goal will be to improve awareness in the surgical oncology community and at institutional level to modify current clinical practice and identify optimal treatment options.