Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy employing radical en bloc procedure for adenocarcinoma: Technical details and outcomes

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

International Expert Consensus on Precision Anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: PAM-HBP Surgery Project

BACKGROUND

Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).

METHODS

Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

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.

Splenic artery as a simple landmark indicating difficulty during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

INTRODUCTION

The use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasing worldwide. It is important for surgeons to predict preoperatively the difficulty and risks of a surgery. However, very few reports have evaluated the impact of patient or tumor factors on the difficulty of LDP. We aimed to determine the predictors of technical difficulties when performing LDP.

METHODS

This study included 34 patients who underwent LDP. Patient information was obtained retrospectively and included age, gender, BMI, primary disease, previous abdominal surgery, previous pancreatitis, tumor size, tumor proximity to the splenic arterial origin, type of splenic artery (SpA), operative time, blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and length of hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictors of a long operative time. SpA anatomy was classified into two types based on the relationship between its origin and the pancreas. Patients whose SpA origin was upward of the pancreatic parenchyma were classified as SpA type 1, whereas patients whose SpA origin was covered by the pancreatic parenchyma were classified as SpA type 2.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis revealed SpA type 2 to be an independent risk factor for a long operation (odds ratio = 9.925; 95% confidence interval: 1.461-67.412; P = 0.019). SpA type 2 was related to a longer operative time (P < 0.001) and greater intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Classification according to SpA type is simple and useful for predicting technical difficulty when performing LDP.

Impact of Spleen Preserving Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Postoperative Infectious Complications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is the standard procedure for body and tail pancreatic tumors. Technical difficulties arising from the strict anatomical relationship between pancreas and splenic vessels generally impose a concomitant splenectomy. Previous retrospective studies have shown a reduced risk of postoperative complications and infections in spleen preserved patients, but this is still a debated issue. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a more robust evidence on the effect of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted. Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I²-index and Cochran Q-test.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies were eligible, and 632 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, 296 (46.8%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (Group S), and 336 (53.2%) patients underwent spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Group SP). In-hospital mortality was 0%. In the group S, the estimated pooled odds ratio of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) and overall complications was 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.28; P = .048) and 2.30 (95% CI: 1.11-4.76; P = .024). The estimated pooled odds ratio of pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, and reoperation was 1.64 (P = .094), 1.01 (P = .987), and 1.24 (P = .776), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce postoperative SSI and overall complications. These results should be interpreted with caution but seem meaningful to establish a better evidence-based treatment for distal pancreatic tumors. Further studies are warranted to analyze the role of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on long-term outcomes.

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.

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.

Splenic Preservation Versus Splenectomy During Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have been published comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), but the results remain inconsistent. The aim of this study was to compare SPDP with DPS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature searches of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were performed to identify relevant studies published before April 30,2015. Perioperative outcomes of SPDP and DPS were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed in random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate. A subanalysis was conducted to compare the two techniques of splenic preservation: splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw technique (WT).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies and 1156 patients were included in the comparison between SPDP and DPS. A total of 502 of these patients underwent SPDP and 654 underwent DPS. Meta-analysis showed the SPDP group had significantly fewer infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, P = 0.006), less operative blood loss (P<0.0001), lower overall morbidity rate (OR 0.66, P = 0.002), and lower clinical pancreatic fistula rate (OR 0.42, P = 0.002) than the DPS group. Subanalysis indicated the SVP group had significantly lower rate of spleen infarction (OR 0.12, P<0.00001) and fewer secondary splenectomies (OR 0.13, P = 0.008) than the WT group.

CONCLUSIONS

SPDP was a safe procedure associated with better short-term outcomes than DPS. SVP could provide more sufficient blood perfusion for the conserved spleen than WT. However, the evidence is limited, and more randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Appraisal of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Left-Sided Pancreatic Cancer: A Large Volume Cohort Study of 152 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to appraise the value of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for left-sided pancreatic cancer based on a large volume cohort study.

METHODS

We reviewed data for all consecutive patients undergoing LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between December 2006 and December 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 91 male and 61 female patients, with a median age of 62.7 years were included in this study. The median operative duration was 234 minutes. Pathological reports revealed the following: a median tumor size of 3.0 cm (range, 0.4-10.0), T stages (T1 in 7.9%, T2 in 5.3%, T3 in 86.8%, and no T4), the tumor differentiation (well differentiated in 16.4%, moderately differentiated in 75.4%, and poorly differentiated in 8.2%), and R0 resection in 126 patients (82.9%). After pancreatectomy, 96 patients (63.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the median time to chemotherapy was 30 days. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (range, 5-31), and the median time to diet resumption was 1 day. Grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 14 patients (9.2%) and grade II or III complications occurred in 27 (17.7%). The median overall survival was 43.0 months. A Cox proportional hazards model showed that tumor size, N1 stage, combined resection, and incompleteness of planned adjuvant chemotherapy affect patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer is reasonable within selected indications. An international consensus on laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer would be desirable and timely.

Postoperative Complications, In-Hospital Mortality and 5-Year Survival After Surgical Resection for Patients with a Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor: A Systematic Review

Studies on postoperative complications and survival in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) are sparse and randomized controlled trials are not available. We reviewed all studies on postoperative complications and survival after resection of pNET. A systematic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2000-2013. Inclusion criteria were studies of resected pNET, which described postoperative complications separately for each surgical procedure and/or 5-year survival after resection. Prospective and retrospective studies were pooled separately and overall pooled if heterogeneity was below 75%. The random-effect model was used. Overall, 2643 studies were identified and after full-text analysis 62 studies were included. Pancreatic fistula (PF) rate of the prospective studies after tumor enucleation was 45%; PF-rates after distal pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, or central pancreatectomy were, respectively, 14-14-58%. Delayed gastric emptying rates were, respectively, 5-5-18-16%. Postoperative hemorrhage rates were, respectively, 6-1-7-4%. In-hospital mortality rates were, respectively, 3-4-6-4%. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) of resected pNET without synchronous resected liver metastases were, respectively, 85-93%. Heterogeneity between included studies on 5-year OS in patients with synchronous resected liver metastases was too high to pool all studies. The 5-year DSS in patients with liver metastases was 80%. Morbidity after pancreatic resection for pNET was mainly caused by PF. Liver resection in patients with liver metastases seems to have a positive effect on DSS. To reduce heterogeneity, ISGPS criteria and uniform patient groups should be used in the analysis of postoperative outcome and survival.

Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results

Background

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy has been well described for benign pancreatic lesions, but its role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains open to debate. We report our results adopting a laparoscopic technique that obeys established oncologic principles of open distal pancreatosplenectomy.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of a prospectively kept database of 135 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy, performed across two sites in the UK and the Netherlands (07/2007–07/2015 Southampton and 10/2013–07/2015 Amsterdam). Primary outcomes were resection margin and lymph node retrieval. Secondary endpoints were other perioperative outcomes, including post-operative pancreatic fistula. Definition of radical resection was distance tumour to resection margin >1 mm. All patients underwent ‘laparoscopic radical left pancreatosplenectomy’ (LRLP) which involves ‘hanging’ the pancreas including Gerota’s fascia, followed by clockwise dissection, including formal lymphadenectomy.

Results

LRLP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed in 25 patients. Seven of the 25 patients (28 %) had extended resections, including the adrenal gland (n = 3), duodenojejunal flexure (n = 2) or transverse mesocolon (n = 3). Mean age was 68 years (54–81). Conversion rate was 0 %, mean operative time 240 min and mean blood loss 340 ml. Median intensive/high care and hospital stay were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Clavien–Dindo score 3+ complication rate was 12 % and ISGPF grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate 28 %; 90-day (or in-hospital) mortality was 0 %. The pancreatic resection margin was clear in all patients, and the posterior margin was involved (<1 mm) in 6 patients, meaning an overall R0 resection rate of 76 %. No resection margin was microscopically involved. Median nodal sample was 15 nodes (3–26). With an average follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year survival was 88 %.

Conclusions

A standardised laparoscopic approach to pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the left pancreas can be adopted safely. Our study shows that these results can be reproduced across multiple sites using the same technique.

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.