Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery: Is There a Benefit?

Minimally invasive procedures minimize trauma to the human body while maintaining satisfactory therapeutic results. Minimally invasive pancreas surgery (MIPS) was introduced in 1994, but questions regarding its efficacy compared to an open approach were widespread. MIPS is associated with several perioperative advantages while maintaining oncological standards when performed by surgeons with a robust training regimen and frequent practice. Future research should focus on addressing learning curve discrepancies while identifying factors associated with shortening the time needed to attain technical proficiency.

An evidence-based model for predicting conversion to open surgery in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP.

METHODS

A total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves.

RESULTS

Following an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

Effect of surgical approach on early return to intended oncologic therapy after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although robotic pancreatectomy may facilitate an earlier functional recovery, the impact of a robotic pancreatectomy program during its early experience on the timing of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) after surgery is unknown.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used propensity score matching with a 1:2 ratio to compare patients who underwent robotic or open surgery (distal pancreatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) during the first 3 years of our robotic pancreatectomy experience (January 2018-December 2021). Generalized estimating equations modeling was used to evaluate the effect of surgical approach on early RIOT, defined as adjuvant chemotherapy initiation within 8 weeks after surgery, and late RIOT, defined as initiation within 12 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 26 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy and 52 patients who underwent open pancreatectomy. Rates of receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were 96.2% and 78.9%, respectively. Rate of early RIOT in the robotic group (73.1% was higher than that in the open group (44.2%; P = 0.018). In multivariable analysis, a robotic approach was associated with early RIOT (odds ratio, 3.54; 95% confidence interval 1.08-11.62; P = 0.038). Surgical approach did not impact late RIOT (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval 0.71-14.38; P = 0.128).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open pancreatectomy, robotic pancreatectomy did not delay RIOT. In fact, odds of early RIOT were increased, which supports the oncological safety of our robotic pancreatectomy program during its implementation.

Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?

BACKGROUNDS

The use of drains in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The present study investigated postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without intraperitoneal drain placement.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided in drain group (DG), including patients with prophylactic abdominal drain placed, and no-drain group (NDG) including those without drain. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes, using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

116 patients were selected. After matching, DG and NDG consisted of 29 patients each. The rates of POPF and abdominal collection were lower in NDG in comparison to DG (3.4% vs. 27.6%, p 0.025 and 3.4% vs. 31.0%, p 0.011, respectively). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the NDG (5 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001). No difference between the groups was found for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Drain omission was associated with lower rates of POPF and abdominal collections, as well as shorter hospital stays, not affecting the rate of severe complication, reoperation and readmission.

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted.

CONCLUSION

RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Optimizing terminology for pancreatectomy: Introducing a new notation system

We introduce a novel notation system for pancreatectomy designed to provide a clear and concise representation of surgical procedures. As surgical techniques and the scope of pancreatic surgeries continue to diversify, existing communication methods among medical professionals regarding the specifics of the surgeries have proven inadequate. Our proposed notation system clearly indicates the approach (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted), type of surgery (e.g., pancreatoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy), and extent of resection and accompanying resected organs or vasculature. These elements are all recorded in this order by using abbreviations. For example, a pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatic transection just above the SMA and combined resection of the SMV would be noted as "OPD(hb')-SMV". This new notation system allows for concise expression of the essential information on performed procedures of pancreatic resection, leading to smooth information sharing. This initiative is an essential step towards standardizing pancreatic surgery documentation on a global scale. Here, we present the development and application of this system, highlighting its potential to transform surgical communication and documentation.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial

Background

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been increasingly adopted for the treatment of liver malignancies despite lacking evidence from randomised trials. We aimed to determine the effect of RH compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy for liver malignancies.

Methods

This single-blinded, randomised trial was conducted at a tertiary care academic centre (DRKS00027531). Patients with resectable liver malignancies were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to either RH or LH with stratification by type of malignancy and difficulty of resection. Patients were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the mean quality of life within 90 days after surgery, measured with the role functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included operating time, morbidity, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and resection margin status.

Findings

Between February 21, 2022, and Sep 18, 2023, 80 patients (RH: n = 41, LH: n = 39) were included and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Role functioning scores did not differ between RH and LH (mean [SD], 74.3 [23.3] versus 79.6 [22.3]; mean difference -5.3, 95% CI -15.6 to 5.1, p = 0.547). The comprehensive complication index was not significantly different between the study groups (8.9 [23.1] versus 15.5 [23.9], p = 0.137). There were no differences in other perioperative outcomes.

Interpretation

RH yielded similar outcomes in quality of life and can be considered a safe alternative to LH.

Funding

None.

Evaluating the efficacy of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy in selected early-stage left-sided pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy is safe and beneficial for recectable pancreatic cancer, but the extent of resection for early-stage tumors remains controversial.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with left-sided pancreatic cancer who underwent either laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (LRAMPS, n = 54) or laparoscopic distal pancreatosplecnectomy (LDP, n = 131) between October 2020 and December 2022 were reviewed. The preoperative radiological selection criteria were as follows: (1) tumor diameter ≤ 4 cm; (2) located ≥ 1 cm from the celiac trunk; (3) didn't invade the fascial layer behind the pancreas.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching (LRAMPS, n = 54; LDP, n = 54), baseline data were well-balanced with no differences. LRAMPS resulted in longer operation time (240.5 vs. 219.0 min, P = 0.020) and higher intraoperative bleeding volume (200 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.001) compared to LDP. Although LRAMPS harvested more lymph nodes (16 vs. 13, P = 0.008), there were no statistically significant differences in lymph node positivity rate (35.2% vs. 33.3%), R0 pancreatic transection margin (94.4% vs. 96.3%), and retroperitoneal margin (83.3% vs. 87.0%) rate. Postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, LRAMPS was associated with increased drainage volume (85.0 vs. 40.0 mL, P = 0.001), longer time to recover semi-liquid diet compared to LDP (5 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001) and increased daily bowel movement frequency. Tumor recurrence pattern and recurrence-free survival were comparable between the two groups, but the adjuvant chemotherapy regimens varied, and the completion rate of the 6-month intravenous chemotherapy was lower in the LRAMPS group compared to the LDP group (51.9% vs. 75.9%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

LRAMPS did not provide oncological benefits over LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer within the selection criteria, but it increased operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative bowel movement frequency. These factors impacted the regimen selection and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, consequently compromising the potential benefits of LRAMPS in achieving better local control.

What defines the "value" of robotic surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Perspectives from a U.S. Cancer Center

The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery's value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

Distal Pancreatectomy for Body Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Is Splenectomy Necessary? A Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The value of splenectomy for body localization (≥ 5 cm from spleen hilum) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (B-PDAC) is uncertain. This study assessed spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) results for B-PDAC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-center study included patients who underwent SPDP (Warshaw's technique) or distal splenopancreactomy (DSP) for B-PDAC from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to balance SPDP and DSP patients regarding sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), body mass index (BMI), laparoscopy, pathological features [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/tumor node metastasis classification (TNM)], margins, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients (64 male, median age 68 years, median BMI 24 kg/m2) were enrolled with a median follow-up of 63 months (95% CI 52-96 months), including 59 (46%) SPDP and 70 (54%) DSP patients. A total of 39 SPDP patients were matched to 39 DSP patients. SPDP patients had fewer harvested nodes (19 vs 22; p = 0.038) with a similar number of positive nodes (0 vs 0; p = 0.237). R0 margins were achieved similarly in SPDP and DSP patients (75% vs 71%; p = 0.840). SPDP patients were associated with decreased comprehensive complication index (CCI, 8.7 vs 16.6; p = 0.004), rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, 14% vs 29%; p = 0.047), and hospital stay (11 vs 16 days; p < 0.001). SPDP patients experienced similar disease-free survival (DFS, 5 years: 38% vs 32%; p = 0.180) and overall survival (OS, 5 years 54% vs 44%; p = 0.710). After matching, SPDP patients remained associated with lower CCI (p = 0.034) and hospital stay (p = 0.028) while not associated with risks of local recurrence (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.28-2.62; p = 0.781), recurrence (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.61-1.78; p = 0.888), or death (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.68-2.11; p = 0.556).

CONCLUSION

SPDP for B-PDAC is associated with less postoperative morbidity than DSP, without impairing oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Primary Hydatid Cyst of the Pancreas: A Literature Review on a Rare and Challenging Occurrence of Echinococcosis

Hydatid disease is caused by the Echinococcus tapeworm and is a zoonosis that endemically affects certain geographic areas with a high prevalence in animal husbandry. Due to globalization, the pathology can also be encountered beyond these preferred geographic areas. It predominantly affects the liver and lungs, with pancreatic localizations of hydatid cysts being rare and posing a challenge for differential diagnosis and surgical tactics. The present study aimed to provide a recent scoping of the literature on this type of localization, analyzing demographic data, therapeutic management, and postoperative outcomes. It was observed that females are more frequently affected in pancreatic hydatid localizations (p < 0.001), with the most common symptomatology represented by abdominal pain. The preferred localization was at the level of the pancreatic tail (32.5%), followed by cephalic localizations (25%). The preferred surgical approach was open surgery, with an observed preference for open surgery in specific localizations, such as the head, isthmus, and body of the pancreas (p < 0.001). Radical procedures are more commonly used than conservative ones (52.5% vs. 47.5%), and paradoxically, although less invasive, procedures such as inactivation and drainage are associated with more frequent complications (p = 0.03). This type of localization, due to the elements of local anatomical topography, requires adequate preparation in biliopancreatic surgery, considering that sometimes preoperative diagnosis is not oriented, and intraoperative records may require extensive interventions. Our research encompassed a thorough review of literature spanning the last decade using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, focusing specifically on cases involving primary hydatid cysts found within the pancreas. Thirty-three relevant articles were published between 2014 and 2024. In addition, we presented a unique case study that illustrates this uncommon occurrence.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial

Background

Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407).

Findings

Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD.

Interpretation

In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Laparoscopic Radical Total Gastrectomy and Pancreatosplenectomy for Synchronous Cancer of the Stomach and Pancreas

The safety of laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric and pancreatic cancers has been established individually, but there is little evidence for synchronous cancers. In this case, a 59-year-old man with a history of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma underwent laparoscopic surgery for a suspected pancreatic invasion of advanced gastric cancer. Pathology revealed double cancer of the stomach and pancreas. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy and distal pancreatectomy were successfully performed. The patient had a pancreatic leak on postoperative day seven but was discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 21. This case suggests the possibility of expanding the indications for laparoscopic surgery for similar cancers in the future. Additionally, the anatomical reticulum can be resected as a single mass using laparoscopy alone.

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas - technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.

A multi-institutional randomized phase III study comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer; Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG2202 (LAPAN study)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), including laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade owing to its favorable short-term outcomes. However, evidence regarding its oncologic safety is insufficient. In March 2023, a randomized phase III study was launched in Japan to confirm the non-inferiority of overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing MIDP compared with that of patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

This is a multi-institutional, randomized, phase III study. A total of 370 patients will be enrolled from 40 institutions within 4 years. The primary endpoint of this study is overall survival, and the secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival, proportion of patients undergoing radical resection, proportion of patients undergoing complete laparoscopic surgery, incidence of adverse surgical events, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Only a credentialed surgeon is eligible to perform both ODP and MIDP. All ODP and MIDP procedures will undergo centralized review using intraoperative photographs. The non-inferiority of MIDP to ODP in terms of overall survival will be statistically analyzed. Only if non-inferiority is confirmed will the analysis assess the superiority of MIDP over ODP.

DISCUSSION

If our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of MIDP in terms of overall survival, it would validate its short-term advantages and establish its long-term clinical efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCT 1,031,220,705 [ https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1031220705 ].

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in obese patients

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). LDP has similar oncological outcomes as open surgery in PDAC. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes in obese patients with RDP versus LDP for PDAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for PDAC between 2012 and 2022 at 12 international expert centres were included.

RESULTS

out of 372, 81 patients were included. All baseline features were comparable between the two groups. RDP was associated with decreased blood loss (495mlLDP vs. 188mlRDP; p = 0.003), lower conversion rate (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019) and lower rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019). Overall and disease-free survival were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients with left-sided PDAC, the robotic approach was associated with improved intraoperative outcomes and fewer severe complications.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the 2020s: Recent Institutional Experience and a Narrative Review of Current Evidence

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit's data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit's data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.