Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with advanced (stage III/IV) pancreatic body tail cancer: a SEER-based study

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic body tail carcinoma (PBTC) is a relatively few pancreatic cancer in clinical practice, and its specific clinicopathological features and prognosis have not been fully described. In this study, we aimed to create a nomogram to predict the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced PBTC.

METHODS

We extracted clinical and related prognostic data of advanced PBTC patients from 2000 to 2018 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Independent prognostic factors were selected using univariate and multivariate Cox analyses, and a nomogram was constructed using R software. The C-index, area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the clinical utility of the nomogram. Finally, OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 1256 patients with advanced PBTC were eventually included in this study. Age, grade, N stage, M stage, surgery, and chemotherapy were identified as independent risk factors using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (p < 0.05). In the training cohort, the calibration index of the nomogram was 0.709, while the AUC values of the nomogram, age, grade, N stage, M stage, surgery, and chemotherapy were 0.777, 0.562, 0.621, 0.5, 0.576, 0.632, and 0.323, respectively. Meanwhile, in the validation cohort, the AUC values of the nomogram, age, grade, N stage, M stage, surgery, and chemotherapy were 0.772, 0.551, 0.629, 0.534, 0.577, 0.606, and 0.639, respectively. Good agreement of the model in the training and validation cohorts was demonstrated in the calibration and DCA curves. Univariate survival analysis showed a statistically significant effect of age, grade, M stage, and surgery on prognosis (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Age, grade, M stage, and surgery were independently associated with OS, and the established nomogram was a visual tool to effectively predict OS in advanced PBTC patients.

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

Methods

Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2.

Results

In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue).

Conclusions

Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to improve the tangential resection margin rates and N1 node clearance following resection of malignancies of the pancreatic body and tail. Owing to its technical complexity, minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS) has only been reported by a few centers worldwide. We performed this meta-analysis to compare both short- and long-term outcomes between open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) and minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed to identify eligible studies published in the English language regardless of study design. The outcomes of interest were operation time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, overall complications, Grade B/C post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), R0 resection rates, lymph node (LN) yield and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Five non-randomized studies comprising of a total 229 patients (89 MI-RAMPS, 140 O-RAMPS) were included for analysis. Intra-operative blood loss was observed to be significantly reduced in MI-RAMPS as compared to O-RAMPS (MD -256.16, P < 0.001), while LN yield was higher in O-RAMPS as compared to MI-RAMPS (MD -2.73, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the other perioperative, oncologic and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides early evidence to suggest that MI-RAMPS may produce comparable short- and long-term outcomes to O-RAMPS, when undertaken by appropriately skilled surgeons in well-selected patients. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to corroborate these findings.

Improved oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive left pancreatectomy: Propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive (MIS) left pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly used to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite improved short-term outcomes, no studies have demonstrated long-term benefits over open resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried between 2010 and 2016 for patients with PDAC, grouped by surgical approach (MIS vs open). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical staging, and pathologic staging were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative, short-term oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, both cohorts included 805 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, staging, or preoperative therapy between cohorts. The MIS cohort had a shorter length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 vs 8.5 ± 7.3 days; P < .0001) with the trend toward improved time to chemotherapy (53.9 ± 26.1 vs 57.9 ± 29.9 days; P = .0511) and margin-positive resection rate (15.3% vs 18.9%; P = .0605). Lymph node retrieval and receipt of chemotherapy were similar. The MIS cohort had higher median overall survival (28.0 vs 22.1 months; P = .0067). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest survival for robotic compared with laparoscopic and open LP (41.9 vs 26.6 vs 22.1 months; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety of MIS LP and favorable long-term oncologic outcomes. The improved survival after MIS LP warrants further study with prospective, randomized trials.

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal versus central pancreatectomy for tumors in the pancreatic neck and proximal body

For benign and borderline tumors in the pancreatic neck and proximal body, laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are alternative surgical procedures. Choosing between LSPDP and LCP is difficult. This retrospective cohort study was looking forward to provide evidence for clinical decision.A total of 59 patients undergoing LSPDP (Kimura procedure) and LCP between June 2013 and March 2017 were selected. The clinical outcomes of patients were compared by χ test or Fisher exact test and Student t test.This study included 36 patients in LSPDP group, and 23 patients in LCP group. The overall complications incidence in LCP group was significantly higher than LSPDP group (35 vs 6%, P = .004), and the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (grade B and C) rate and abdominal infection rate in LCP group were still significantly higher than LSPDP group (POPF 22 vs 3%, P = .019; abdominal infection 35 vs 3%, P = .001, respectively). The length of resected pancreas was significantly longer in LSPDP group (9.8 ± 2.0 vs 5.3 ± 1.1 cm, P = .007). The median follow-up was 39 months (range 12-57 months). No patient was confronted by tumor recurrence. The proportion of postoperative pancreatin and insulin treatment in LCP group were similar to LSPDP group (9 vs 17%, P = .383; 0 vs 3%, P = 1.000, respectively).For patients with poor general condition, the safety of LCP needs to be taken seriously; in some ways, LSPDP may be more secure, physiological, and easier operation for tumor located in pancreatic neck and proximal body.

Robotic pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumors in the pancreatic head: A propensity score-matched comparison and analysis from a single center

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the most advanced minimally invasive technique for the treatment of complicated solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPT). The aim of this study is to evaluate feasibility of robotic surgery for the treatment of SPTs in the pancreatic head.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 83 SPTs in pancreatic head was conducted. Clinical characteristics were extracted and propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare and evaluate mid-term outcomes of the two techniques.

RESULTS

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection (DPPHR-P) and tumor enucleation (En) were performed in 51, 24, and 8 patients, respectively. The robotic approach was associated with a significantly lower volume of blood loss, lower need for transfusion, and faster time to post-surgery recovery. Major complications and costs were comparable for both techniques.

CONCLUSION

A robotic approach provides an alternative to open surgery for SPTs in the pancreatic head without increasing the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) or other major complications and with good patient outcomes.

Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the "3 + 2" mode.

METHODS

Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the "3 + 2" mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short-term outcomes for the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP using the "3 + 2" mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the "3 + 2" mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot-assisted surgery.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

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.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections in two medium-sized medical centres

To analyze the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic neoplasms, in two medium-volume centers in Northern Italy, a retrospective chart review was performed in the operative registries, searching for patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery via laparoscopy, irrespective of the final pathological nature of the resected neoplasm. For each case, a standard data extraction form was completed and the following data was extracted: age and sex, type of resection, estimated blood loss, length of the operation, number of harvested nodes, post-operative pancreatic fistula, major post-operative complications, mortality and final pathological diagnosis. The systematic literature research was also undertaken and the reported results were analyzed. A total of 55 cases were recorded, including 39 distal pancreatectomies and 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies. The most frequent indications leading to surgery were ductal adenocarcinoma (26 pts) and cystic neoplasm (22 pts). No post-operative death occurred in this series; pancreatic fistula occurred in 64% of distal pancreatectomies and 22% of pancreaticoduodenectomies. The mean operating times were 178' and 572', respectively. Both distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy proved to be feasible and were safely performed by laparoscopy, in two centers with medium-volume pancreatic caseload.

First experience of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in a child with insulinoma

Background

An insulinoma is a functional neuroendocrine pancreatic tumor, and surgical resection is indicated. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries have been shown to be generally safe and feasible for treatment of pediatric cases of urologic and digestive disease.

Case presentation

In July 2016, a 9-year-old girl (24 kg, 120 cm) was admitted with a pancreatic tail insulinoma and underwent robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The total procedure time was 155 min, and the blood loss was about 10 ml. The patient recovered without complications.

Conclusions

This case supports that robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may be safe and feasible in pediatric insulinoma patients.

Robotic Enucleation for Benign or Borderline Tumours of the Pancreas: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison from a High-Volume Centre in Asia

BACKGROUND

Enucleation is increasingly performed for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas because it is a parenchyma-sparing and less invasive procedure compared to conventional pancreatectomy, which reduces the risk of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. This study retrospectively evaluated and compared the pre-, intra-, and post-operative clinical characteristics after open and robotic approaches for pancreatic enucleation.

METHODS

Fifty-six cases of enucleation for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas treated from March 2010 to July 2015 were identified by a retrospective search. These included 25 patients who underwent an open approach and 31 patients who underwent a robotic approach. The clinical characteristics were extracted and compared.

RESULTS

The two groups had a similar location and pathology of the tumour. The robotic group had a significantly shorter operation time and significantly less blood loss than the open group. The rates of clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) formation and major complications were similar. The robotic approach could be applied for a tumour on the right side of the pancreas without increasing the incidence of clinical PF or other major complications. The patients with clinical PF had a significantly shorter distance between the lesion and the main pancreatic duct (MPD).

CONCLUSION

Robotic enucleation appears to be a feasible and safe approach for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas and was associated with similarly favourable surgical outcomes as the open approach. Identifying and avoiding the MPD is an important step during enucleation.

One hundred and forty five total laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies: A single centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) remains one of the most challenging minimal invasive operations today.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2016, 197 patients were scheduled for LPD but 162 patients (from January 2007 to July 2016) were analysed in this cohort series.

RESULTS

Total LPD concerned for 162 patients (five patients did not undergo PD and 12 underwent conversion): standard LPD in 104 patients (66%), and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving PD in 41 patients (26%). Median operative time was 415 (240-765) min. Median blood loss was 200 (50-2100) ml. Twelve patients required blood transfusion. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grades B and C) occurred in 21 (13%) patients: 16 (10.0%) grade B, and 5 (3%) grade C. Grades B and C delayed gastric emptying occurred in five patients each. Grades B and C post-pancreatectomy bleeding occurred in 9 (5.7%) and 3 (1.9%) patients, respectively. LPD was performed for 18 (11.4%) benign and 139 (88.5%) malignant lesions. Superior mesenteric and/or portal vein involvement required major venous resection in eight patients. The 90-day mortality 5.0%. The median overall survival for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 22.5 months.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality for LPD are comparable to open procedures rates in the literature. Laparoscopic major venous resection is feasible and safe.

Pancreatic resection in the era of laparoscopy: State of Art. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding interventions is the pancreatic surgery that is seen as intraoperatively risky and with high postoperative morbi-mortality rate. In order to understand the complexity of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, we performed a systematic review of literature.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of literature was performed regarding laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach in pancreas resections has been extensively reported as safe and feasible regarding pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic enucleation. Compared to open approach, no benefit in morbi-mortality has been demonstrated (except for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy) and no controlled randomized trials have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is not workable in all patients and patient selection is not standardized. Additionally, most optimistic reports considering laparoscopic approach are produced by tertiary centres. Currently, two tasks should be accomplished 1°) standardization of the laparoscopic pancreatic procedures 2°) comparative trials to assess endpoint benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection compared with open procedures.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resection for cancer represents a real challenge for every surgeon. Recent improvements in laparoscopic experience, minimally invasive surgical techniques and instruments make now the minimally invasive approach a real "triumph." There is no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has replaced with great success conventional surgery in many fields, including surgical oncology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

However, its progress in pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma has been dramatically slow. Recent evidence supports the notion that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible and that is becoming the procedure of choice mainly for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. On the other side, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has not yet been widely accepted and there is enormous skepticism when applied for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the potential applications of minimally invasive surgical approaches for this aggressive, heterogeneous, and enigmatic type of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Moreover, the potential future applications of these approaches are discussed with the hope to improve the quality of life as well as the survival rates of pancreatic cancer patients.

How I Do It: Hybrid Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections remain technically challenging. Distal pancreatectomy has been embraced at multiple centers as an acceptable minimally invasive technique in selected patients. In contrast, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has not achieved broad acceptance, partly due to technical challenges. We detail a minimally invasive technique that utilizes both laparoscopic and robotic approaches which capitalizes on the advantages of each. Our early results have encouraged the continued development of this minimally invasive pancreatic surgery program. This hybrid technique may be an approach that is useful for surgeons striving to adopt the advantages of minimally invasive surgery for their patients.

Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and pancreatogastrostomy: current surgical technique and outcomes

Recent improvements in imaging techniques and more frequent use of cross-sectional imaging have led to an increase in the identification of benign and low-grade lesions of the pancreas. Patients with resectable cancers are commonly treated by either a Whipple procedure or distal pancreatectomy (DP) based on the location of the tumor. Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a less commonly performed operation that has recently been utilized for resection of these now more frequently diagnosed low-grade and benign lesions located in the mid pancreas. Lesions that may have a relatively more indolent nature include branch-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMNs), mucinous cystic neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors, and solid pseudopapillary tumors. The goal of a CP is complete extirpation of the lesion, while preserving pancreatic parenchyma to reduce the risks of developing diabetes and exocrine insufficiency (EI). Although open CP has been shown to be safe and efficacious, the outcomes of a minimally invasive approach are still relatively underreported and therefore unknown. In this paper, we describe our surgical approach to performing a CP with an accompanying video demonstration of the key portions of the operation.

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic tumors

BACKGROUND

For patients with pancreatic tumors, several disparities have been shown to impact access to care, including surgery, and subsequently adversely affect long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate national disparities in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across different demographics for pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

We utilized the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to identify patients with pancreatic tumors from 2010 to 2011 who had undergone surgery through either an open or MIS approach. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate differences in patient characteristics in relation to surgical approach and conversion to open.

RESULTS

A total of 2809 patients were identified. The initial surgical approach included 86.5 % open (2430) and 13.5 % MIS (87.6 % were laparoscopic, and 12.4 % were robotic). Tumor histology was significantly associated with MIS, whereby patients with neuroendocrine tumors were more than twice as likely to have an MIS approach compared to adenocarcinoma. Tumor location within the pancreas was also associated with MIS, with tumors in the tail being three times more likely to be removed through MIS compared to tumors in the head. For patients with disease in the body or tail of the pancreas, ethnicity was independently associated with MIS whereby patients of Hispanic origin were less likely to have MIS. The conversion rate to open was 27.7 %, and geographic location was associated with conversion rates.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS procedures comprise approximately 13.5 % of surgical procedures for pancreatic tumors. In addition to tumor histology, differences in surgical approach were identified with respect to ethnicity for patients with tumors in the body/tail of the pancreas.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Advances in Surgical Management of Pancreatic Diseases

The surgical management of pancreatic diseases is rapidly evolving, encompassing advances in evidence-driven selection of patients amenable for surgical therapy, preoperative risk stratification, refinements in the technical conduct of pancreatic operations, and quantification of postoperative morbidity. These advances have resulted in dramatic reductions in mortality following pancreatic surgery, particularly at high-volume pancreatic centers. Surgical decision making is complex, and requires an intimate understanding of disease pathobiology, host physiology, technical considerations, and evolving trends. This article highlights key developments in the contemporary surgical management of pancreatic diseases.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Robot-Assisted Middle Pancreatectomy for Elderly Patients: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, safety, feasibility, and short- and long-term outcomes for elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies (MPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten patients (≥60 years) underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies from 2012 to 2015. The perioperative data, including tumor size, operating time, rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postoperative morbidity, and other parameters, were analyzed. We collected and analyzed the follow-up information.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64.30 years (range, 60-73 years). The average tumor size was 2.61 cm. The 10 cases were all benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The mean operating time was 175.00 min. The mean blood loss was 113.00 ml with no blood transfusion needed. Postoperative fistulas developed in 5 patients; there were 2 Grade A fistulas and 3 grade B fistulas. There were 3 patients who underwent postoperative complications, including 2 Grade 1 or 2 complications and 1 Grade 3 complication. No reoperation and postoperative mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 19.91 days. After a median follow-up of 23 months, new onset of diabetes mellitus developed in 1 patient and none suffered from deterioration of previously diagnosed diabetes or exocrine insufficiency, and no tumor recurrence happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy was safe and feasible for elderly people. It had low risk of exocrine or endocrine dysfunction and benefited patients' long-term outcomes. Incidence of POPF was relatively high but we could prevent it from resulting in bad outcomes by scientific perioperative care and systemic treatment.