Laparoscopic resection of exocrine carcinoma in central and distal pancreas results in a high rate of radical resections and long postoperative survival. Surgery. 2012;151:717-723. [PMID: 22284762 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.016]

The role of minimally invasive surgery in resectable distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), we hypothesize that minimally invasive DP (MIDP) carries short-term benefits over ODP (ODP) in the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

NSQIP database was queried to select patients who underwent DP for PDAC with available report on POPF. The population was divided into No-POPF vs. POPF groups. In each group, propensity-score matching was applied to compare 30-day outcomes of ODP vs. MIDP.

RESULTS

There were 2,824 patients; 2,332 (82%) had No-POPF and 492 (21%) had POPF. In No-POPF patients, 921 pairs were matched between ODP and MIDP. MIDP patients had slightly longer operations (227 vs. 205 minutes; p < 0.001), but lower rates of surgical site complications (1% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.002), postoperative transfusion (7.1% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.003), overall morbidity (21.1% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.009), and one-day shorter median length of stay (LOS) (5 vs. 6 days; p = 0.001). In the POPF group, 172 pairs were matched. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, reoperation, LOS, and home discharge. Similar conclusions were drawn in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

CONCLUSION

POPF is common following DP for PDAC. In the absence of POPF, MIDP is associated with fewer postoperative morbidities and shorter LOS.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background

Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC.

Methods

Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004–2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015–2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance.

Results

Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort.

Conclusions

Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10464-6.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous abdominal surgery can be a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Today, distal pancreatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically. This study investigates the consequences of prior upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP from April 1997 to January 2020 were included. Based on the history and type of PUAS, these were categorized into three groups: minimally invasive (I), open (II), and no PUAS (III). To reduce possible confounding factors, the groups were matched in 1:2:4 fashion based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology grade.

RESULTS

After matching, 30, 60, and 120 patients were included in the minimally invasive, open and no PUAS groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of intraoperative outcomes. Postoperative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were similar. Open PUAS was associated with higher Comprehensive Complication Index (33.7 vs 20.9 vs 26.2, p = 0.03) and greater proportion of patients with ≥ 2 complications (16.7 vs 0 vs 6.7%, p = 0.02) compared with minimally invasive and no PUAS. Male sex, overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasia, and open PUAS were risk factors for severe morbidity in the univariable analysis. Only open PUAS was statistically significant in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

PUAS does not impair the feasibility and safety of LDP as its perioperative outcomes are largely comparable to those in patients without PUAS. However, open PUAS increases the burden and severity of postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with poor physical status

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous over open surgery in the treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and low-grade malignancies. Yet the evidence on the relationship between comorbidities and the outcomes of LDP remains scarce.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP for all indications between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Preoperative physical status was defined according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) criteria. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients with high (ASA III-IV) and low/moderate anesthetic risk (ASA I-II).

RESULTS

A total of 605 patients were eligible for analysis including 190 with ASA III-IV and 415 with ASA I-II. The former was associated with older age, male gender, preexisting medical conditions, greater total number of comorbidities and red blood cell transfusion. The rate of medical complications was significantly higher in high-risk patients. Multivariable analysis identified ASA III-IV and operative time as independent predictors for medical complications. Overall/severe morbidity, surgical complications and mortality rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor physical status defined as ASA grades III-IV predicts medical complications, but has a limited impact on surgical complications and severe morbidity of LDP. Thus, it should not be considered as a contraindication for LDP.

Laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution comparative study

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic and open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Fifty-one patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital between January 2014 and July 2018 were enrolled. 20 patients underwent laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and 31 patients received open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. Postoperative and short-term outcomes of the two groups of patients were analyzed.

Results

The mean operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall postoperative morbidity were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy group lost less blood (252.5±198.3 vs. 472.6±428.0 mL, P=0.037) and had lower transfusion rates (10.0% vs. 35.4%, P=0.041) than the open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy group. The laparoscopic group also had statistically significantly earlier passing of first flatus (2.5±0.8 vs. 3.2±1.2 days, P=0.028) and first oral intake (2.9±1.0 vs. 3.7±1.6 days, P=0.042). Furthermore, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (45.0% vs. 32.3%) and overall complications (70.0% vs. 74.2%) were not statistically difference between the two groups. The survival rates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery were not statistically difference between the laparoscopic and open groups (94.4% vs. 93.5, 67.0% vs. 78.0%, and 50.2% vs. 38.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

The results of this study show that laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Surgical strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

The current treatment strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), based on the international consensus guideline, has been accepted widely. However, reported outcomes after surgical resection for IPMN show that once the tumor progresses to invasive intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma (IPMC), recurrence is not uncommon. The surgical treatment for IPMN is invasive and sometimes followed by complications. Therefore, the best timing for resection might be at the point when high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is evident. According to previous reports, main duct type IPMN has a high malignant potential and its surgical resection is universally accepted, whereas, the incidence of HGD/invasive IPMC in branch duct and mixed type IPMNs is thought to be lower. In addition to mural nodules and a dilated main pancreatic duct, cytology and measurement of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in the pancreatic juice might be useful to differentiate HGD/invasive IPMC from low-grade dysplasia. The nomogram proposed recently to predict the risk of HGD/invasive IPMC in IPMN patients might help surgeons decide on the best treatment strategy, depending on the patient's age and general condition. Second resection for high-risk lesions in the remnant pancreas might improve the survival of IPMN patients.

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

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

Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases

Background

Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines.

Methods

Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision.

Results

Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250-1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6-36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusion

Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

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.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

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

Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

Selected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit.

RESULTS

A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m² (20-31 kg/m²). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Can standardized pathology examination increase the lymph node yield following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Lymph node yield (LNY) is an indicator of oncological adequacy of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Our hypothesis is that standardized pathology examination (SPE) aimed at accurate staging can increase the LNY without changing surgical technique.

METHODS

After the introduction of SPE for distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens at Oslo University Hospital, prospective data were collected on patients with PDAC undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDP). Their data were compared with retrospective data from specimens examined in a non-standardized way (NSPE).

RESULTS

SPE and NSPE were applied to 20 and 33 specimens, respectively. SPE was associated with a higher LNY and a higher median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) in the specimen (18 vs 7, P = 0.001 and 4 vs 1, P = 0.005, respectively). In the stepwise regression model, SPE and younger age resulted in an increased LNY. In the logistic regression model, increased LNY and larger tumor size positively correlated with the presence of PLN.

CONCLUSION

SPE of distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens is associated with higher LNY in patients with PDAC, which increases the likelihood of detecting PLN and reduces the risk of understaging. These findings also indicate that the LDP technique provides an adequate LNY in patients with PDAC.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Long-term oncologic outcomes after standard resection

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only curative option in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Little is known about the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. This bi-institutional study aimed to examine the long-term oncologic results of standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

From January 2002 to March 2016, 207 patients underwent standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway) and Asan Medical Centre (Seoul, Republic of Korea). After the exclusion criteria were applied (distant metastases at operation, conversion to an open operation, loss to follow-up), 186 patients were eligible for the analysis. Perioperative and oncologic variables were analyzed for association with recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Median overall and recurrence-free survivals were 32 and 16 months, while 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates were estimated to be 38.2% and 35.9%, respectively. Ninety-six (52%) patients developed recurrence: 56 (30%) extrapancreatic, 27 (15%) locoregional, and 13 (7%) combined locoregional and extrapancreatic. Thirty-seven (19.9%) patients had early recurrence (within 6 months of operation). In the multivariable analysis, tumor size >3 cm and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with early recurrence (P = .017 and P = .015, respectively). The Cox regression model showed that tumor size >3 cm and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of decreased recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with satisfactory long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Several risk factors, such as tumor size >3 cm, no adjuvant chemotherapy, and lymphovascular invasion, are linked to poor prognosis after standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Systematic review of outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with coeliac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer involving the coeliac axis is considered unresectable by most guidelines, with a median survival of 6-11 months. A subgroup of these patients can undergo distal pancreatectomy with coeliac axis resection, but consensus on the value of this procedure is lacking. The evidence for this procedure, including the impact of preoperative hepatic artery embolization and (neo)adjuvant therapy, was evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines until 27 May 2015. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included morbidity and radical resection rates.

RESULTS

A total of 19 retrospective studies, involving 240 patients, were included. The methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to moderate. A radical resection was reported in 74·5 per cent (152 of 204), major morbidity in 27 per cent (26 of 96), ischaemic morbidity in 9·0 per cent (21 of 223) and 90-day mortality in 3·5 per cent (4 of 113). Overall, 35·5 per cent of patients (55 of 155) underwent preoperative hepatic artery embolization without an apparent beneficial impact on ischaemic morbidity. Overall, 15·7 per cent (29 of 185) had neoadjuvant and 51·0 per cent (75 of 147) had adjuvant therapy. There was a difference in survival between patient series where less than half of patients had (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and series where more than half were receiving this treatment: case-weighted median overall survival was 16 (range 9-48) versus 18 (10-26) months respectively (P = 0·002). Overall median survival for the whole study population was 14·4 (range 9-48) months.

CONCLUSION

Distal pancreatectomy with coeliac axis resection seems a valuable option for selected patients with pancreatic cancer involving the coeliac axis with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and a median survival of 18 months when combined with (neo)adjuvant therapy.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Review of the English Literature

BACKGROUND

Recently, the superiority of the minimally invasive approach, which results in a better cosmetic result, faster recovery, and shorter length of hospital stay, is a technique that has been progressively recognized as it has developed. And the minimally invasive approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy (DP), which is a standard method for the treatment of benign, borderline, and part of malignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. This article aims to analyze the types, postoperative recovery, and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, online journals, and the Internet for all publications on LDP. Articles were selected if the abstract contained patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic diseases. All selected articles were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

If there were no contraindications for LDP, this operation is suitable for benign, borderline, or malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail, which should try to be performed with preservation of the spleen. LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions to experienced surgeon. Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (S-LDP) and robotic laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (R-LDP) perioperative outcomes are similar with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (C-LDP). And the advantages of S-LDP and R-LDP require further exploration. With the application of enhanced recovery program (ERP), length of hospital stay and costs are reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions. Compared with open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has a lot of advantages; a trend was observed for LDP to replace traditional open surgery. LDP combined with ERP is expected to become standard in the treatment of pancreatic body and tail lesions.

Pancreatic cancer: Open or minimally invasive surgery?

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma is one of the most fatal malignancies, with R0 resection remaining the most important part of treatment of this malignancy. However, pancreatectomy is believed to be one of the most challenging procedures and R0 resection remains the only chance for patients with pancreatic cancer to have a good prognosis. Some surgeons have tried minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but the short- and long-term outcomes of pancreatic malignancy remain controversial between open and minimally invasive procedures. We collected comparative data about minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery. The available evidence suggests that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is as safe and feasible as open PD (OPD), and shows some benefit, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Despite the limited evidence for MIPD in pancreatic cancer, most of the available data show that the short-term oncological adequacy is similar between MIPD and OPD. Some surgical techniques, including superior mesenteric artery-first approach and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with major vein resection, are believed to improve the rate of R0 resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is less technically demanding and is accepted in more pancreatic centers. It is technically safe and feasible and has similar short-term oncological prognosis compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Impact of obesity on surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A Norwegian single-center study

BACKGROUND

Obesity is known as a risk factor for intra- and postoperative complications in pancreatic operation. However, the operative outcomes in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy remain unclear.

METHODS

A total number of 423 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet from April 1997 to December 2015. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the body mass index: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥30 kg/m²). After excluding underweight patients, 402 patients were enrolled in this study.

RESULTS

Obese patients had significantly longer operative time and increased blood loss compared with overweight and normal weight patients (190 [61-480] minutes vs 158 [56-520] minutes vs 153 [29-374] minutes, P = .009 and 200 [0-2,800] mL vs 50 [0-6250] mL vs 90 [0-2,000] mL, P = .01, respectively). A multiple linear regression analysis identified obesity as predictive of prolonged operative time and increased blood loss during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The rates of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and severe complications (≥grade III by Accordion classification) were comparable in the 3 groups (P = .23 and P = .37, respectively). A multivariate logistic regression model did not demonstrate an association between obesity and postoperative morbidity (P = .09). The duration of hospital stay was comparable in the 3 groups (P = .13).

CONCLUSION

In spite of longer operative time and greater blood loss, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients is associated with satisfactory postoperative outcomes, similar to those in normal weight and overweight patients. Hence, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy should be equally considered both in obese and nonobese patients.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Tumors: Does Size Matter?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for large pancreatic tumors may require prolonged dissection, and this could be associated with increased operative time and intraoperative complications.

METHODS

From a total cohort of 190 consecutive patients undergoing LDP, 18 patients were found to have pancreatic tumors >5 cm and were included in the retrospective study of prospectively collected data. Three techniques were used to approach the splenic vessels: the superior pancreatic, the inferior supracolic and post-pancreatic transection.

RESULTS

Of these 18 patients, 13 were women and 5 were men, the median age was 68 years and their median tumor size 7 cm. Exocrine pancreatic malignancy was diagnosed in 8 patients, 6 patients had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors and 4 patients cystic neoplasm. The median number of resected nodes was 14. R1 resections for exocrine pancreatic malignancies were found in 50% of patients. Morbidity (grade >II) was found in 16.6% of patients and 30 days mortality in 1 patient. Overall median survival was 50 months and 29 months for patients with exocrine pancreatic malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for large tumors, while technically demanding, is possible without additional morbidity and did not compromise short- and long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Laparoscopic surgery for solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas

Background and Objectives:

Solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas are rare and occur most frequently in young women. They have an uncertain pathogenesis and unclear clinical behavior. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical presentation of solid pseudopapillary tumors and assess the efficacy of treatment with minimally invasive surgery.

Methods:

From March 1997 to February 2011, 13 of 273 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures on the pancreas were found to have solid pseudopapillary tumors. There were 12 female patients and 1 male patient. The median age was 21 years (range, 15–77 years). Abdominal pain was the most common presenting symptom (n = 9). Tumors were incidentally found in 3 patients on computed tomography scans obtained for other reasons.

Results:

Enucleation of the tumor was performed in 4 patients, including 3 in whom the tumor was located in the head of the pancreas. Eight patients underwent distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, whereas spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy was performed in one case. The median tumor size was 6 cm (range, 1.5–11 cm), the median operative time was 197 minutes (range, 68–320 minutes), and the median blood loss was 50 mL (range, <50–750 mL). Distal resections were performed with a linear stapler. Four patients had postoperative complications. The median length of hospital stay was 5 days (range, 2–12 days). During a median follow-up period of 11 months (range, 3–121 months), no local recurrences or distant metastases were found.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic resections and enucleations of solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas can be performed safely and with adequate resection margins even if the tumors are located in the head of the organ.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Time for a Randomized Controlled Trial? Results of an All-inclusive National Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare at a national level, the early and long-term outcome of distal pancreatectomy (DP) performed by laparoscopy (LapDP) or open surgery (OpenDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND DATA

LapDP is feasible and safe for benign conditions but its use for PDAC is controversial.

METHODS

French healthcare databases were screened to identify all patients who had undergone LapDP or OpenDP for PDAC between 2007 and 2012. Endpoints were (i) 90-day mortality, (ii) morbidity, (iii) transfusion rate, (iv) length of hospital stay (LOS), and (v) long-term survival. Logistic regression and adjusted Cox models were used to compare LapDP and OpenDP with regard to these outcomes. Confounders included (i) patients' characteristics; (ii) associated surgical procedures; and (iii) characteristics of the hospital. Performance of the resulting models was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

Over the 6-year period, there were 2753 operations for PDAC: 2406 OpenDP and 347 LapDP (12.6%). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 5.2%; median LOS was 15 days, and median survival was 38 months. LapDP was not correlated with 90-day mortality but was associated with reduced pleuropulmonary morbidity (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, P = 0.028), blood transfusion (OR 0.44, P = 0.001), and LOS (P = 0.042), and was associated with increased survival (P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

LapDP has not been adopted widely for PDAC. The early and long-term results of LapDP as currently practiced are as good as those of OpenDP. The next step in the evaluation of LapDP should be a randomized controlled trial (RCT), but such a trial is likely to suffer from insufficient recruitment.

Characterization of intraductal papillary neoplasm of bile duct with respect to histopathologic similarities to pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm

Intraductal papillary neoplasm of bile duct (IPNB) is a papillary tumor covered by well-differentiated neoplastic epithelium with fine fibrovascular cores in the dilated bile ducts. It reportedly shows similarities to intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of pancreas (IPMN), to various degrees. Herein, IPNB was pathologically analyzed by classifying 52 cases into 4 groups based on the histopathologic similarities to IPMN: group A (identical to IPMN, 19 cases), group B (similar to but slightly different from IPMN, 18 cases), group C (vaguely similar to IPMN, 5 cases), and group D (different from IPMN, 10 cases). In group A, intrahepatic and perihilar regions were mainly affected, most cases were of low/intermediate or high grade without invasion, and gastric type was the most common phenotype, followed by oncocytic and intestinal types. In groups C and D, perihilar and distal bile ducts were affected, almost all cases were of high grade with invasion, and most of them were of intestinal and pancreatobiliary phenotypes. Most group B cases were of intestinal phenotype, and all were of high grade with or without invasion. In conclusion, these 4 groups of IPNB showed unique pathologic features and behaviors. Group A cases were less aggressive and shared many features with IPMN, whereas group C and D cases were more aggressive and mainly found in perihilar and distal bile ducts. Group B resembling IPMN was intermediate between them. This classification may be useful in clinical practice and holds promise for a novel approach to analyze IPNB tumorigenesis.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a multicenter cohort study on 196 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely accepted as a feasible option for distal pancreatectomy. However, the experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is limited to a small number of studies, reported by expert centers. The present study aimed to evaluate perioperative and oncological outcomes after LDP for PDAC in a large, multicenter cohort of patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the data on 196 patients with histologically verified PDAC, operated at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway), Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Republic of Korea), Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (Paris, France) and University Hospital Southampton (Southampton, UK) between January 2002 and April 2015 was conducted. The patients with standard (SLDP) and extended (i.e., en bloc with adjacent organ, ELDP) resections were compared in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 196 LDP procedures, 191 (97.4 %) were completed through laparoscopy, while five (2.6 %) were converted to open surgery. ELDP was performed in 30 (15.7 %) cases. Sixty-one (31.9 %) patients experienced postoperative complications, including 48 (25.1 %) with pancreatic fistula. The rate of clinically relevant fistula (grade B/C) was 15.7 %. Median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (2-63) days. Median follow-up was 16 months. Median survival was 31.3 months (95 % CI 22.9-39.6). Three- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 42.4 and 30 %, respectively. SLDP was associated with significantly higher survival compared with ELDP (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP seems to be a feasible and safe procedure, providing satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Laparoscopic Pylorus- and Spleen-Preserving Duodenopancreatectomy for a Multifocal Neuroendocrine Tumor

Background

In contrast to laparoscopic left pancreatic resection, laparoscopic total duodenopancreatectomy is a procedure that has not been standardized until now. It is not only the complexity that limits such a procedure but also its rare indication. The following article demonstrates the technical aspects of laparoscopic pylorus- and spleen-preserving duodenopancreatectomy.

Case Report

The indication for intervention in the underlying case was a patient diagnosed with a multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) I syndrome and a multifocal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) infiltrating the duodenum and the pancreas. The patient was post median laparotomy which was necessary after jejunal perforation due to a peptic ulcer. The resection was carried out entirely laparoscopically, and the reconstruction, which included a biliodigestive anastomosis and a gastroenterostomy, was carried out by means of a median upper abdomen laparotomy of 7 cm in length through which the resected specimen was also removed. The total operative time was 391 min. The blood loss accounted for 250 ml. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the eighth postoperative day.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy is a treatment option in carefully selected indications. The complexity of the operation demands a high level of expertise in the surgical team.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: safe and reasonable?

As a result of technological advances during the past two decades, surgeons now use minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to pancreatic resection more frequently, yet the role of these approaches for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resections remains uncertain, given the aggressive nature of this malignancy. Although there are no controlled trials comparing MIS technique to open surgical technique, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with increasing frequency. Data from retrospective studies suggest that perioperative complication profiles between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are similar, with perhaps lower blood loss and fewer wound infections in the MIS group. Concerning oncologic outcomes, there appear to be no differences in the rate of achieving negative margins or in the number of lymph nodes (LNs) resected when compared to open surgery. There are limited recurrence and survival data on laparoscopic compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but in the few studies that assess long term outcomes, recurrence rates and survival outcomes appear similar. Recent studies show that though laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy entails a greater operative cost, the associated shorter length of hospital stay leads to decreased overall cost compared to open procedures. Multiple new technologies are emerging to improve resection of pancreatic cancer. Robotic pancreatectomy is feasible, but there are limited data on robotic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and outcomes appear similar to laparoscopic approaches. Additionally fluorescence-guided surgery represents a new technology on the horizon that could improve oncologic outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, though published data thus far are limited to animal models. Overall, MIS distal pancreatectomy appears to be a safe and reasonable approach to treating selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, though additional studies of long-term oncologic outcomes are merited. We review existing data on MIS distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Several key issues in surgical treatment of distal pancreatic cancer

Distal pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with insidious and subtle presentation, low radical resection rate and poor prognosis. The effectiveness of treatments for this disease remains to be improved. Radical resection is the only curable treatment. Personalized therapeutic strategy with surgical resection as a core should be the standard mode for these patients, and a professional multidisciplinary team is indispensable. Patients with borderline resectable cancers may benefit from a neoadjuvant approach by initiating chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation prior to the resection. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is designed to establish an operation with oncologic rationales and should be the standard radical resection mode for distal pancreatic cancer. The use of diagnostic laparoscopy can help find hepatic metastases and peritoneal dissemination to avoid an unnecessary open operation. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has many advantages compared with open operation, but is only applicable to early-stage patients with small tumors. In addition, the long-term oncologic effects of this surgical procedure still need to be verified, and it should be carried out selectively. Radical distal (or left) pancreatectomy with resection of the celiac axis (DP-CAR) is proper for some patients with evidence of celiac arterial invasion and should be conducted meticulously. However, new breakthroughs in early diagnosis and genetically personalized therapy are urgently needed. We still need prospective, randomized studies in multicenter institutions to provide more evidence for the neoadjuvant approach and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for cancer: a critical review of the current literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed operative practices by offering patients procedures with reduced hospital stay and recovery compared to that of open operations. In spite of the advantages of a MIS approach, the application to pancreatectomy has only recently emerged. This review aims to analyze and discuss available comparative studies as they relate to resection techniques for treatment of malignant disease. A PubMed search was used to obtain original studies and meta-analyses relating to MIS pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2013. Several studies were identified that reported on the application of MIS specifically to the treatment of cancer, many of which were retrospective, single-institution studies. Notwithstanding an inherent selection bias, several studies suggest that MIS can provide equivalent R0 resection rates, number of lymph nodes harvested, and survival to that of open resection. Furthermore, parameters such as blood loss and length of stay are significantly reduced in patients treated with MIS. The current literature supports the conclusion that MIS is safe and effective as a treatment for cancer in well-selected patients in the hands of experienced surgeons. However, the published studies to date are observational in nature and therefore higher quality studies will be needed to support the application and generalizability of MIS in the treatment of pancreatic malignancies.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and short-term oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Since the first report on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appeared in the 1990s, the procedure has been performed increasingly frequently to treat both benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Many earlier publications have shown LDP to be a good alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for benign lesions, although this has never been studied in a prospective, randomized manner. The evidence for the use of LDP to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is not as well established. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current evidence for LDP in cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We conducted a review of English language publications reporting LDP results between 1990 and 2013. All studies reporting results in patients with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. Thirty-nine publications were found and included in the results for a total of 309 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (potential double publications were not eliminated). Most LDP procedures are performed in selected cases and generally involve smaller tumors than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) procedures. Some of the papers report unselected cases and include procedures on larger tumors. The number of lymph nodes harvested using LDP is comparable to the number obtained with ODP, as is the frequency of R0 resections. Current data suggest that similar short term oncological results can be obtained using LDP as those obtained using ODP.

Oncological feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: a single-institution comparative study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is performed increasingly for pancreatic pathology in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, only few reports have compared its oncological efficacy with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). We compared these two techniques in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

From a prospectively maintained database, all patients who underwent either LDP or ODP for adenocarcinoma in the body and tail of the pancreas between January 2008 and December 2011 were compared. Data were analysed using SPSS(®) v19 utilising standard tests. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 101 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, 22 had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma (LDP n = 8, ODP n = 14). Both groups were well matched for age and the size of tumour (22 vs. 32 mm, p = 0.22). Intraoperative blood loss was 306 ml compared with 650 ml for ODP (p = 0.152). A longer operative time was noted for LDP (376 vs. 274 min, p < 0.05). Total length of stay was shorter for LDP compared with ODP (8 vs. 12 days, p = 0.05). The number of postoperative pancreatic fistulas were similar (LDP n = 2 vs. ODP n = 3, p = 0.5). Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 88 % of LDP (n = 7) compared with 86 % of ODP (n = 12). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 16 for LDP versus 14 for ODP. Overall 3-year survival also was similar: LDP = 82 %, ODP = 74 % (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

From an oncological perspective, LDP is a viable procedure and its results are comparable to ODP for ductal adenocarcinomas arising in the body and tail of the pancreas.

Pancreatic cancer-improved care achievable

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is one of the most aggressive cancers, and the decline in mortality observed in most other cancer diseases, has so far not taken place in pancreatic cancer. Complete tumor resection is a requirement for potential cure, and the reorganization of care in the direction of high patient-volume centers, offering multimodal treatment, has improved survival and Quality of Life. Also the rates and severity grade of complications are improving in high-volume pancreatic centers. One of the major problems worldwide is underutilization of surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer. Suboptimal investigation, follow up and oncological treatment outside specialized centers are additional key problems. New chemotherapeutic regimens like FOLFIRINOX have improved survival in patients with metastatic disease, and different adjuvant treatment options result in well documented survival benefit. Neoadjuvant treatment is highly relevant, but needs further evaluation. Also adjuvant immunotherapy, in the form of vaccination with synthetic K-Ras-peptides, has been shown to produce long term immunological memory in cytotoxic T-cells in long term survivors. Improvement in clinical outcome is already achievable and further progress is expected in the near future for patients treated with curative as well as palliative intention.

Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has been regarded as a safe and effective treatment for benign and borderline malignant pancreatic lesions. However, its application for left-sided pancreatic cancer is still being debated. The clinical evidence for radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)-based minimally invasive approaches for left-sided pancreatic cancer was reviewed. Potential indications and surgical concepts for minimally invasive RAMPS were suggested. Despite the limited clinical evidence for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic cancer, the currently available clinical evidence supports the use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy under oncologic principles in well-selected left sided pancreatic cancers. A pancreas-confined tumor with an intact fascia layer between the pancreas and left adrenal gland/kidney positioned more than 1 or 2 cm away from the celiac axis is thought to constitute a good condition for the use of margin-negative minimally invasive RAMPS. The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) anterior RAMPS is feasible and safe for margin-negative resection in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. The oncologic feasibility of the procedure remains to be determined; however, the currently available interim results indicate that even oncologic outcomes will not be inferior to those of open radical distal pancreatosplenectomy.

A five-year survivor without recurrence following robotic anterior radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for a well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is regarded as a reasonable approach for margin-negative and systemic lymph node clearance in left-sided pancreatic cancer. We present a patient with more than 5 years disease-free survival after robotic anterior RAMPS for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the body of the pancreas. The distal part of pancreas, soft tissue around the celiac trunk, and the origin of splenic vessels was dissected with the underlying fascia between the pancreas and adrenal gland. Resected specimen was removed through small vertical abdominal incision. Robot working time was about 8 hours, and blood loss was about 700 mL without blood transfusion. He returned to an oral diet on the postoperative first day and recovered without any clinically relevant complications. There was no lymph node metastasis, perineural or lymphovascular invasion. Both the pancreatic resection margin and the tangential posterior margin were free of carcinoma. The patient received only postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy around the tumor bed. The patient has survived for more than 5 years without evidence of cancer recurrence. Minimally invasive radical left-sided pancreatectomy with splenectomy may be oncologically feasible in well-selected pancreatic cancer.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.

RESULTS

Over a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic and robotic resection for pancreatic cancer

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic resection have been established as feasible and safe. Whereas widespread application of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is in progress, the utilization of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is still localized to a few centers because of the added complexity and advanced laparoscopic skills required. Comparative studies have demonstrated the typical advantages of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatic resection, namely, less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Robotic assistance for laparoscopic approaches is gaining interest, but the true value added is still undefined. Significant discussion revolves around the appropriateness of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic cancer. Although limited data and only short-term follow-up engender ongoing skepticism, the technical feasibility, existing reports in pancreatic cancer, and the lack of negative outcomes in other gastrointestinal cancers spark ongoing clinical evaluation. Minimally invasive surgical approaches have significant potential to improve the outcomes of pancreatic resection especially in pancreatic cancer patients in whom an optimal recovery is important for adjuvant treatment options. Larger experiences are forthcoming, and controlled trials are eagerly awaited; however, the feasibility of such is questionable because of the low incidence of resectable pancreatic cancer and the small number of centers performing minimally invasive pancreatectomy for malignancy.

Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events

Background. Morbidity is a cornerstone assessing surgical treatment; nevertheless surgeons have not reached extensive consensus on this problem. Methods and Findings. Clavien, Dindo, and Strasberg with coauthors (1992, 2004, 2009, and 2010) made significant efforts to the standardization of surgical morbidity (Clavien-Dindo-Strasberg classification, last revision, the Accordion classification). However, this classification includes only postoperative complications and has two principal shortcomings: disregard of intraoperative events and confusing terminology. Postoperative events have a major impact on patient well-being. However, intraoperative events should also be recorded and reported even if they do not evidently affect the patient's postoperative well-being. The term surgical complication applied in the Clavien-Dindo-Strasberg classification may be regarded as an incident resulting in a complication caused by technical failure of surgery, in contrast to the so-called medical complications. Therefore, the term surgical complication contributes to misinterpretation of perioperative morbidity. The term perioperative adverse events comprising both intraoperative unfavourable incidents and postoperative complications could be regarded as better alternative. In 2005, Satava suggested a simple grading to evaluate intraoperative surgical errors. Based on that approach, we have elaborated a 3-grade classification of intraoperative incidents so that it can be used to grade intraoperative events of any type of surgery. Refinements have been made to the Accordion classification of postoperative complications. Interpretation. The proposed systematization of perioperative adverse events utilizing the combined application of two appraisal tools, that is, the elaborated classification of intraoperative incidents on the basis of the Satava approach to surgical error evaluation together with the modified Accordion classification of postoperative complication, appears to be an effective tool for comprehensive assessment of surgical outcomes. This concept was validated in regard to various surgical procedures. Broad implementation of this approach will promote the development of surgical science and practice.

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: current concepts

The minimally invasive approach has been slow to gain acceptance in the field of pancreatic surgery even though its advantages over the open approach have been extensively documented in the medical literature. The reasons for the reluctant use of the technique are manifold. Laparoscopic distal or left sided pancreatic resections have slowly become the standard approach to lesions of the pancreatic body and tail as a result of evolution in technology and experience. A number of studies have shown the potential advantages of the technique in terms of safety, blood loss, oncological and economic feasibility, hospital stay and time to recovery from surgery. This review aims to provide an overview of the recent advances in the field of laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and discuss potential future developments.