Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

Minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: an observational study of medicare advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in medicare advantage (MA) plans has been steadily increasing. Prior research has shown differences in healthcare access and outcomes based on Medicare enrollment status. This study sought to compare utilization of minimally invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative outcomes between MA and Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of beneficiaries  ≥ 65.5 years of age enrolled in FFS and MA plans was performed of patients undergoing a CRC resection from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was operative approach, defined as minimally invasive (laparoscopic) or open. Secondary outcomes included robotic assistance, hospital length-of-stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission. Using balancing weights, we performed a tapered analysis to examine outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

MA beneficiaries were less likely to have lymph node (12.9 vs 14.4%, p < 0.001) or distant metastases (15.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to receive chemotherapy (6.2% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001), compared to FFS beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries had a higher risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic CRC resection (OR 1.12 (1.10-1.15), p < 0.001), and similar rates of robotic assistance (OR 1.00 (0.97-1.03), p = 0.912), compared to FFS beneficiaries. There were no differences in risk-adjusted length-of-stay (β coefficient 0.03 (- 0.05-0.10), p = 0.461) or mortality at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.99 (0.95-1.04), p = 0.787; OR 1.00 (0.96-1.04), p = 0.815; OR 0.98 (0.95-1.02), p = 0.380). MA beneficiaries had a lower likelihood of non-routine disposition (OR 0.77 (0.75-0.78), p < 0.001) and readmission at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.76 (0.73-0.80), p < 0.001; OR 0.78 (0.75-0.81), p < 0.001; OR 0.79 (0.76-0.81), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MA beneficiaries had less advanced disease at the time of CRC resection and a greater likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic procedure. MA enrollment is associated with improved health outcomes for elderly beneficiaries undergoing operative treatment for CRC.

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for pancreatic cancer and interstitial lung disease: A nationwide longitudinal study

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is an adverse event associated with gemcitabine administration. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, which is now a first-line chemotherapy regimen for pancreatic cancer (PC), may increase the risk of ILD; however, large-scale clinical data on this are limited. Thus, this study aimed to elucidate the incidence and risk factors of ILD in patients with PC receiving gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Through the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a Japanese nationwide inpatient database with outpatient data, we identified consecutive patients with PC who received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy between July 2010 and March 2019 at 205 hospitals. Competing-risk analysis was used to examine the cumulative incidence and risk factors of ILD. Among the 6163 patients who received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, we documented 168 patients (2.7%) who developed ILD with cumulative incidence rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of 2.0% (1.6%-2.4%), 2.7% (2.2%-3.1%), and 3.1% (2.6%-3.6%) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Compared with patients with PC who received gemcitabine monotherapy, those who received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel had an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) for ILD of 1.93 (95% CI: 1.51-2.47). Older age was associated with a high risk of ILD in patients receiving gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (adjusted SHR comparing ≥75 to ≤74 years, 1.61; 95% CI: 1.16-2.24). In conclusion, this study demonstrated the clinical course of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel-associated ILD in patients with PC. When gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is administered to elderly patients with PC, symptoms associated with ILD must be monitored.

Textbook outcome as a composite outcome measure in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure for surgical quality assessment. The aim of this study was to assess TO following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), identify factors independently associated with achieving TO, and analyze hospital variations regarding the TO after case-mix adjustment.

METHODS

This multicenter cohort study retrospectively analyzed 1029 consecutive patients undergoing LPD at 16 high-volume pancreatic centers in China from January 2010 to August 2016. The percentage of patients achieving TO was calculated. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were compared between the TO and non-TO groups. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors independently associated with achieving TO. Hospital variations regarding the TO were analyzed by the observed/expected TO ratio after case-mix adjustment. Differences in expected TO rates between different types of hospitals were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance test.

RESULTS

TO was achieved in 68.9% ( n =709) of 1029 patients undergoing LPD, ranging from 46.4 to 85.0% between different hospitals. Dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) was associated with the increased probability of achieving TO [odds ratio (OR): 1.564; P =0.001], whereas advanced age (≥75 years) and concomitant cardiovascular disease were associated with a lower likelihood of achieving TO (OR: 0.545; P =0.037 and OR: 0.614; P =0.006, respectively). The observed/expected TO ratio varied from 0.62 to 1.22 after case-mix adjustment between different hospitals, but no significant hospital variations were observed. Hospital volume, the surgeon's experience with open pancreaticoduodenectomy and minimally invasive surgery, and surpassing the LPD learning curve were significantly correlated with expected TO rates.

CONCLUSION

TO was achieved by less than 70% of patients following LPD. Dilated pancreatic ducts, advanced age, and concomitant cardiovascular disease were independently associated with achieving TO. No significant hospital variations were observed after case-mix adjustment.

Perioperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study of 653 Cases in a Single Institution

Introduction: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining wide acceptance within pancreatic surgery. However, longitudinal data are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze and assess the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of LPD over a duration of 8 years. Methods: Patients who underwent LPD in our institution between November 2013 and September 2021 were included in this study. The perioperative outcomes were statistically analyzed. The long-term survival was studied over a median follow-up duration of 13 months. Results: In total, 653 consecutive patients treated at our institution were included, of which 617 cases underwent standard LPD and 36 cases underwent LPD with vascular resection. The rate of death in hospital, reoperation, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying were 4.4%, 10.3%, 11.9%, 12.9%, and 6.1% respectively. There were statistical differences in the intraoperative blood loss and transfusion, operation time, and the R0 resection rate between the LPD cases and LPD with vascular resection cases. A total of 526 cases were pathologically diagnosed of cancer. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 49.2%, 17.9%, and 17.9%, respectively, for pancreatic cancer with the median survival time of 12 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 76.9%, 60.8%, and 52.5%, respectively, for bile duct cancer with the median survival time of 35 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 80.2%, 62.2%, and 52.9%, respectively, for duodenal cancer with the median survival time of 53 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 72.5%, 54.5%, and 50%, respectively, for ampullary cancer with the median survival time of 55 months. Conclusion: LPD is a feasible and oncologically acceptable procedure with satisfying perioperative outcomes and long-term survival in a high-volume institution.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Validity of operative information in Japanese administrative data: a chart review-based analysis of 1221 cases at a single institution

PURPOSE

To evaluate the validity of operative information recorded in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database, a national inpatient database including administrative claims data.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical charts of 1221 patients who underwent one of six surgeries (breast, esophageal, gastric, thyroid cancer surgery, appendectomy, or inguinal hernia repair) at a surgery department of a university hospital from April 2016 to March 2019. We compared operative information (type, date, laterality of procedure; type of anesthesia; transfusion; and duration of anesthesia) recorded in the DPC database with the information recorded in the medical charts.

RESULTS

The DPC data for type, date, laterality of surgery, and type of anesthesia were accurate in 99% of the reviewed patients. The sensitivity and specificity for identifying whether a patient received a transfusion procedure were 97.5% and 99.6%, respectively. Data regarding the duration of anesthesia in the DPC database were identical to those in medical chart records in 1114 of 1216 cases that received general or spinal anesthesia (91.5%). The duration of anesthesia in the DPC data was 53 min longer on average than the recorded operative time in the medical charts.

CONCLUSION

The DPC database had high validity for operative information.

Quality of Life Associated with Open vs Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open (O-PD) vs minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD), using a combination of validated qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2017 to 2019, patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were enrolled and presented with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary surveys preoperatively, before discharge, at first postoperative visit and approximately 3 to 4 months after operation ("3 months"). Longitudinal plots of median QoL scores were used to illustrate change in each score over time. In a subset of patients, content analysis of semistructured interviews at postoperative time points (1.5 to 6 months after operation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 56 patients who underwent PD, 33 had an O-PD (58.9%). Physical and functional scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline by 3 months. No significant differences were found in any domains of QoL at baseline and in the postoperative period between patients who underwent O-PD and MI-PD. Qualitative findings were concordant with quantitative data (n = 14). Patients with O-PD and MI-PD reported similar experiences with complications, pain, and wound healing in the postoperative period. Approximately half the patients in both groups reported "returning to normal" in the 6-month postoperative period. A total of 4 patients reported significant long-term issues with physical and functional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses in patients undergoing PD, we found no association between operative approach and QoL in patients who underwent O-PD vs MI-PD. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques for PD and the steep learning curve associated with these techniques, continued assessment of patient benefit is critical.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matching analysis of long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown the short-term feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are comparable to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the long-term oncological safety of LPD in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LPD or OPD between July 2014 and July 2018 at our institution were identified, and those with resectable, pathologically diagnosed PDAC were analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between groups. Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

The original cohort consisted of 64 LPD and 80 OPD cases, in which, the laparoscopic group had a significantly longer median OS (25 vs. 17 months; P = 0.034). A higher proportion of laparoscopic patients received adjuvant therapy (51.6 vs. 32.5%; P = 0.021). PSM analysis identified 47 patient pairs. No significant differences in OS (21 vs. 17 months; P = 0.220) or adjuvant therapy utilization (53.2 vs. 38.3%; P = 0.248) were observed between the matched groups. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that receiving adjuvant therapy (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68), histopathological differentiation (poor vs. moderate-to-well differentiation; HR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26-2.95), and sex (female vs. male, HR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.30-0.75) were independent predictors of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be comparable to OPD in terms of long-term safety for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma when performed in a high-volume center.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.