Laparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Learning Curve of a Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Program at a Second Institution

BACKGROUND

Historically, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been performed via a laparotomy, but increasingly, laparoscopic and robotic platforms are being employed for PD. Laparoscopic PD has a steep surgeon specific learning curve and programmatic elements that must be optimized. These factors may limit a surgeon who is proficient at laparoscopic PD to develop a program at another institution. We hypothesize that the learning curve for a surgeon transferring a program to a second institution is shorter than the initial laparoscopic PD learning curve for the same surgeon.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic PD for any indication at the first institution (FI) from 2012 to 2017 and the second institution (SI) from 2018 to 2021 was conducted. Standard statistical analysis was performed. The learning curve was identified using one-sided CUSUM analysis of operative times.

RESULT

We identified 110 participants, 90 from the FI and 20 from the SI. More patients at the FI were diagnosed with periampullary adenocarcinoma on final pathology compared to the SI (65.6% vs 40.0%, P = .0132). FI operative times stabilized after the 25th laparoscopic PD and SI operative times stabilized after the 5th operation. No statistically significant difference was identified in postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve and average operative time of an SI laparoscopic PD program was shorter than the initial learning curve for a single surgeon with comparable outcomes. This suggests that complex minimally invasive surgical programs can be safely transferred to another high-volume institution without significant loss of progress.

The safety of digestive tract cancer surgery during COVID-19: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery is the primary curative treatment of solid cancers. However, its safety has been compromised by the outbreak of COVID-19. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the safety of digestive tract cancer surgery in the context of COVID-19. We used the Review Manager software (v.5.4) and Stata software (version 16.0) for meta-analysis and statistical analysis. Sixteen retrospective studies involving 17,077 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data indicates that performing digestive tract cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased blood loss(MD = -11.31, 95%CI:-21.43 to -1.20, P = 0.03), but did not increase postoperative complications(OR = 1.03, 95%CI:0.78 to1.35, P = 0 0.86), anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.96, 95%CI:0.52 to1.77, P = 0 0.89), postoperative mortality (OR = 0.65, 95%CI:0.40 to1.07, P = 0 0.09), number of transfusions (OR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.30 to 1.80, P = 0.51), number of patients requiring ICU care(OR = 1.37, 95%CI:0.90 to 2.07, P = 0.14), postoperative 30-d readmission (OR = 0.94, 95%CI:0.82 to 1.07, P = 0 0.33), total hospital stay (MD = 0.11, 95%CI:-2.37 to 2.59, P = 0.93), preoperative waiting time(MD = - 0.78, 95%CI:-2.34 to 0.79, P = 0.33), postoperative hospital stay(MD = - 0.44, 95%CI:-1.61 to 0.74, P = 0.47), total operation time(MD = -12.99, 95%CI:-28.00 to 2.02, P = 0.09) and postoperative ICU stay (MD = - 0.02, 95%CI:-0.62 to 0.57, P = 0.94). Digestive tract cancer surgery can be safely performed during the COVID-19.

A pancreatic adenocarcinoma mimicking hepatoid carcinoma of uncertain histogenesis: A case report and literature review

In rare cases, metastatic adenocarcinomas of different origin may exhibit the features of hepatoid carcinoma (HC), a rare malignant epithelial tumor, most commonly occurring in the ovaries and stomach, as well as in the pancreas and biliary ducts. A case of a 72-year-old female patient who developed a highly aggressive, poorly differentiated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with peritoneal carcinomatosis, demonstrating hepatoid differentiation upon conventional hematoxylin and eosin staining is reported in the present study. The patient presented with severe abdominal pain, and the radiological investigations performed revealed ovarian and hepatic tumor masses and peritoneal lesions, which were surgically removed. The gross examination of the peritoneum and omentum revealed multiple solid, firm, grey-white nodules, diffusely infiltrating the adipose tissue. The microscopic examination revealed a malignant epithelial proliferation, composed of polygonal cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and irregular, pleomorphic nuclei. Certain cells presented with intracytoplasmic mucus inclusions, raising suspicion of a HC with an uncertain histogenesis. Immunohistochemical staining was performed, and the tumor cells were found to be positive for cytokeratin (CK)7, CK18 and mucin 5AC, whereas negative staining for CK20, caudal-type homeobox transcription factor 2, α-fetoprotein, paired box gene 8, GATA-binding protein 3 and Wilms tumor 1 were documented. Thus, the diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma was established. The main aim of the present study was to provide further knowledge concerning poorly differentiated metastatic adenocarcinoma resembling HC, emphasizing the histopathological and immunohistochemical features of these malignant lesions and raising awareness of the diagnostic difficulties that may arise, as well as the importance of the use immunohistochemistry in differentiating carcinomas of uncertain histogenesis.

The safety of colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare systems. This study evaluated the safety of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD 42022327968). Relevant articles were systematically searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative mortality, 30-day readmission, tumor stage, total hospitalization, postoperative hospitalization, preoperative waiting, operation time, and hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) were compared between the pre-pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic periods.

Results

Among the identified 561 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The data indicated that preoperative waiting time related to CRC surgery was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic (MD, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.71-1.28; p < 0.00001). A similar trend was observed for the total operative time (MD, 25.07; 95%CI, 11.14-39.00; p =0.0004), and on T4 tumor stage during the pandemic (OR, 1.77; 95%CI, 1.22-2.59; p=0.003). However, there was no difference in the postoperative complications, postoperative 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, and 30-day readmission times between pre-COVID-19 pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Furthermore, there was no difference in the total hospitalization time, postoperative hospitalization time, and hospitalization time in ICU related to CRC surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the safety of CRC surgery. The operation of CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase postoperative complications, postoperative 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, 30-day readmission, the total hospitalization time, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative ICU hospitalization time. However, the operation of CRC during COVID-19 pandemic increased T4 of tumor stage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the preoperative waiting and operation times were longer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This provides a reference for making CRC surgical strategy in the future.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022327968.

The Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy for Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for blunt trauma remain controversial. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the usefulness of laparoscopy in blunt trauma. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to 23 February 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and overall proportions. Overall, 19 studies with a total of 1520 patients were included. All patients were hemodynamically stable. In the laparoscopy group, meta-analysis showed lesser blood loss (SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.51 to −0.05, I² = 62%) and shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.43, I² = 47%) compared with the laparotomy group. Pooled prevalence of missed injury (0.003 (95% CI 0 to 0.023), I² = 0%), nontherapeutic laparotomy (0.004 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.026), I² = 0%), and mortality (0.021 (95% CI 0.010 to 0.043), I² = 0%) were very low in blunt trauma. In subgroup analysis, recently published studies (2011–present) showed lesser conversion rate (0.115 (95% CI 0.067 to 0.190) vs. 0.391 (95% CI 0.247 to 0.556), test for subgroup difference: p < 0.01). This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopy is a safe and feasible option in hemodynamic stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Robotic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A large-scale study

BACKGROUND

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a mucin-producing tumor that develops from the epithelial lining of the main pancreatic duct or branch pancreatic ducts. Here, we assessed the feasibility and safety of various robotic pancreatectomy approaches to treating IPMN, and short- and long-term outcomes of robotic IPMN resection.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy for IPMN between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The survival outcomes for patients were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 174 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy, 120 and 54 patients had benign or malignant tumors, respectively. Patients with malignant IPMN had lost more weight in the 6 months prior to surgery (P = .008), and a higher serum level of CA19-9 (P < .001) and CEA (P < .001). Postoperative pancreatic or biliary fistula occurred in 17 or 6 patients overall, respectively. The pathology of the IPMN (P = .030), tumor diameter (P = .016), mural nodule (P = .023), tumor capsule (P = .003) and CA19-9 (P = .024) values were all independent risk factors for survival. The median OS time after surgical resection for the malignant IPMN group was 29.0 months (range, 21.6-36.4). The OS was significantly different in patients with IPMN according to their different pathology, tumor capsule, mural nodule group, CA19-9 level, or tumor diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale survey of 174 patients indicated that various robotic pancreatectomy approaches were feasible and safe for IPMN. Patients had an acceptable prognosis, indicating that robotic pancreatectomy represents a feasible potential therapeutic strategy for IPMN.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic diseases has been increasingly utilized. However, the use of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not been widely accepted. In this study, the outcomes of LDP versus conventional open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided PDAC were examined. A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDP or ODP for left-sided PDAC between January 2010 and January 2019 was conducted. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, ASA grade, tumor size, and combined resection. Demographic data, their pathological and short-term clinical parameters, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between the LDP and ODP groups. A total of 197 patients with PDAC were enrolled. There were 115 (58.4%) patients in the LDP group and 82 (41.6%) patients in the ODP group. After 1:1 PSM, 66 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. The LDP group had lesser blood loss (195 vs. 210 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (193.6 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p < 0.01), whereas the overall complication rates were comparable between groups (10.6% vs.16.7%, p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between the LDP and ODP groups regarding 3-year recurrence-free or overall survival rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.33, respectively). LDP in the treatment of left-sided PDAC is a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, patients undergoing LDP than ODP for PDAC had comparable oncological metrics and similar middle-term survival rate.

Intraoperative Transfusion is Independently Associated with a Worse Prognosis in Resected Pancreatic Cancer-a Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Investigate whether intraoperative transfusion is a negative prognostic factor for oncologic outcomes of resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

From June 2004 to January 2014, the medical records of 305 patients were retrospectively reviewed, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy, distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Patients diagnosed with metastatic disease (n = 3) and locally advanced diseases (n = 15) were excluded during the analysis, and total of 287 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The recurrence and disease-specific survival rates of the patients who received intraoperative transfusion showed poorer survival outcomes compared to those who did not (P = 0.031, P = 0.010). Through multivariate analysis, T status (HR (hazard ratio) = 2.04, [95% CI (confidence interval): 1.13-3.68], P = 0.018), N status (HR = 1.46 [95% CI: 1.00-2.12], P = 0.045), adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.51, [95% CI: 0.35-0.75], P = 0.001), intraoperative transfusion (HR = 1.94 [95% CI: 1.23-3.07], P = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors of disease-specific survival after surgery. As well, adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.67, [95% CI: 0.46-0.97], P = 0.035) was independently associated with tumor recurrence. Estimated blood loss was one of the most powerful factors associated with intraoperative transfusion (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative transfusion can be considered as an independent prognostic factor of resected pancreatic cancer. As well, it can be avoided by following strict transfusion policy and using advanced surgical techniques to minimize bleeding during surgery.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.