Assessment of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection.

METHODS

Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

The use of Arista AH as a local haemostatic agent in distal splenopancreatectomy: report of two cases

Bleeding is still one of the most feared intraoperative and postoperative complications that can lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs. Nowadays, in addition to accurate surgical techniques, several local haemostatic agents are available and can be used in case of oozing bleeding. Herein, we report our experience with a ready-to-use polysaccharide powder in two patients undergoing distal splenopancreatectomy. Bleeding control was achieved in both cases. No patient showed postoperative bleeding, and no other complications were reported.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Endoscopic main duct stenting in refractory postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy - a friend or a foe?

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common. Endoscopic treatment (ET) has only scarcely been explored. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for CR POPF after DP and the efficacy of ET in adjunct to standard therapy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients without previous pancreatic surgery who underwent DP between 2011 and 2020 were evaluated, analyzing risk factors for CR POPF. The choice and performance of ET, main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenting, was not standardized. Healing time and complications after ET were registered.

RESULTS

406 patients underwent DP, CR POPF occurred in 29.6%. ET was performed in 17 patients 27 days (median) after index surgery. Risk for CR POPF was increased in ASA-PS 1-2 patients, MPD ≤ 3 mm, procedure time ≥ 3 h, and CRP ≥ 180 on postoperative day 3. POPF resolved with standard treatment after 32 days and 59 days in the ET group (p < 0.001). There was one mortality in the ET-group (not procedure related). Mild post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in three patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CR POPF is common after DP. Long operating time, a narrow MPD, low ASA score, and high postoperative CRP were risk factors for CR POPF. ET was not beneficial but proper evaluation was not possible due to few patients and non-standardized treatment. Complications after ET appeared mild.

Glucose Regulation after Partial Pancreatectomy: A Comparison of Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Distal Pancreatectomy in the Short and Long Term

BACKGRUOUND

Long term quality of life is becoming increasingly crucial as survival following partial pancreatectomy rises. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in glucose dysregulation after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

In this prospective observational study from 2015 to 2018, 224 patients who underwent partial pancreatectomy were selected: 152 (67.9%) received PD and 72 (32.1%) received DP. Comprehensive assessment for glucose regulation, including a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was conducted preoperatively, and 1, 12, and 52 weeks after surgery. Patients were further monitored up to 3 years to investigate development of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) in patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) at baseline or worsening of glucose regulation (≥1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c]) in those with preexisting DM.

RESULTS

The disposition index, an integrated measure of β-cell function, decreased 1 week after surgery in both groups, but it increased more than baseline level in the PD group while its decreased level was maintained in the DP group, resulting in a between-group difference at the 1-year examination (P<0.001). During follow-up, the DP group showed higher incidence of NODM and worsening of glucose regulation than the PD group with hazard ratio (HR) 4.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49 to 12.3) and HR 2.15 (95% CI, 1.09 to 4.24), respectively, in the multivariate analysis including dynamic glycemic excursion profile. In the DP procedure, distal DP and spleen preservation were associated with better glucose regulation. DP had a stronger association with glucose dysregulation than PD.

CONCLUSION

Proactive surveillance of glucose dysregulation is advised, particularly for patients who receive DP.

Evaluation of the Educational Quality of the Top 30 Most Viewed Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Videos on YouTube

Background: Online surgical videos serve as useful adjuncts for surgical training. YouTube is a social media platform increasingly used for education. However, the educational qualities of these videos have not been proven. This study aims to review the topmost 30 viewed videos on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) on YouTube. Methods: A YouTube search was performed on August 1, 2020, using the term "laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy." Inclusion criteria were LDP with or without splenectomy. Exclusion criteria were open or robotic distal pancreatectomy and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. To grade the videos, we used a modified version of the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) 24 of the original 37 consensus statements were used in our study. Results: Twenty-nine of the top 30 most viewed videos were included (1 video was a duplicate). The overall mean view count and number of likes were 7195 (range 2322-39,927) and 17 (range 0-108), respectively. Thirteen videos (44.8%) were on LDP with splenic preservation. The mean conformity to the modified LAP-VEGaS was 9.3 (range 4-16) with a mean of 38.8% (range 16.7%-66.7%) of the criteria met. There was weak correlation between the number of views and the number of criteria met (ρ = 0.189, P < .05). Twelve videos (41.4%) described about staple line management, nine videos (31%) about tips and tricks to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula, including drainage tube management, and three videos (10.3%) identified the common hepatic artery. Videos with no commentary had the lowest mean percentage of criteria met (24.6%). Conclusion: The topmost viewed LDP surgical videos have gaps in meeting the educational needs of a trainee. Video uploaders should be cognizant of the learning needs of surgical trainees.

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.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted pancreatic resection in patients with previous minor abdominal surgeries: a single-center experience of the first three years

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is limited to specialized high-volume centers and selected patient cohorts. Especially for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the standard procedure remains open surgery due to the fear of complications caused by abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical) at our center (Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) were collected prospectively and further analyzed from October 2017 to October 2020. Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. In univariate and multivariate analysis, baseline and perioperative parameters of patients with a history of prior abdominal surgeries (PS) were compared to those of patients with no history of prior abdominal surgeries (NPS).

RESULTS

Out of 131 patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery, 62 (47%) had a history of abdominal surgery. Previous procedures included most often appendectomy (32%) followed by gynecological surgery (29%) and cholecystectomy (27%). 24% of PS had received multiple surgeries prior to the robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. We did not detect differences in the duration of surgery (262 min), conversion rates (10%), and postoperative complications between NPS and PS. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and in-house mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed male sex and high BMI as a potential predictive factor for severe postoperative complications. Other characteristics like the type of pancreatic resection, ASA, and underlying malignancy showed no difference in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery to be safe and feasible for patients with a history of minor prior abdominal surgery. Hence, each patient should individually be evaluated for a minimally invasive approach regardless of a history of previous operations.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

Safety considerations in laparoscopic surgery: A narrative review

Laparoscopic surgery has many advantages over open surgery. At the same time, it is not without its risks. In this review, we discuss steps that could enhance the safety of laparoscopic surgery. Some of the important safety considerations are ruling out pregnancy in women of the childbearing age group; advanced discussion with the patient regarding unexpected intraoperative situations, and ensuring appropriate equipment is available. Important perioperative safety considerations include thromboprophylaxis; antibiotic prophylaxis; patient allergies; proper positioning of the patient, stack, and monitor(s); patient appropriate pneumoperitoneum; ergonomic port placement; use of lowest possible intra-abdominal pressure; use of additional five-millimetre (mm) ports as needed; safe use of energy devices and laparoscopic staplers; low threshold for a second opinion; backing out if unsafe to proceed; avoiding hand-over in the middle of the procedure; ensuring all planned procedures have been performed; inclusion of laparoscopic retrieval bags and specimens in the operating count; avoiding 10-15 mm ports for placement of drains; appropriate port closures; and use of long-acting local anaesthetic agents for analgesia. Important postoperative considerations include adequate analgesia; early ambulation; careful attention to early warning scores; and appropriate discharge advice.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Dual trocar laparoscopy improves reduced-port surgery of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The technical feasibility of transumbilical single-incision surgery (SIL) for pancreatic resections has been demonstrated. However, this technique is hampered by the limited degrees of freedom for instrument handling. Dual-incision laparoscopy (DIL) with an additional trocar may simplify dissection and allow drainage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between December 2009 and May 2017, 21 patients were treated with SIL (12/2009 to 01/2014) or DIL (02/2014 to 05/2017) pancreatic resection. All data were collected in a database and retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Demographic parameters of the patients did not differ significantly in the DIL or the SIL group. No conversion to open surgery was required. No intraoperative complication occurred in either group. The surgical difficulty score was significantly higher in the SIL group (4.4 ± 1.56 vs 2.18 ± 1.95; p = .006). Postoperative serum amylase levels were higher (101.9 U/l ± 50.11 vs 48.91 U/l ± 35.20; p = .01) and return to normal levels (6.4 ± 9.66 days vs 2.09 ± 1.98 days; p = .045) was later in the SIL group. Three complications requiring radiological or surgical intervention were witnessed in the SIL group and one complication in the DIL group (p = .42).

CONCLUSION

DIL surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to SIL surgery, facilitating key steps of distal pancreatic tail resection.