Laparoscopic Hand-Assisted Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Presumed Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

Long-Term Oncologic Outcome following Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection for Benign Tumors, Cystic Neoplasms, and Neuroendocrine Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has a considerable surgical risk for complications and late metabolic morbidity. Parenchyma-sparing resection of benign tumors has the potential to cure patients associated with reduced procedure-related short- and long-term complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting surgery-related complications following PD and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. A total of 38 cohort studies that included data from 1262 patients were analyzed. In total, 729 patients underwent DPPHR and 533 PD.

RESULTS

Concordance between preoperative diagnosis of benign tumors and final histopathology was 90.57% for DPPHR. Cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNETs) and periampullary tumors (PATs) were observed in 497, 89, and 31 patients, respectively. In total, 34 of 161 (21.1%) patients with intraepithelial papillar mucinous neoplasm exhibited severe dysplasia in the final histopathology. The meta-analysis, when comparing DPPHRt and PD, revealed in-hospital mortality of 1/362 (0.26%) and 8/547 (1.46%) patients, respectively [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.15-1.58); p = 0.21], and frequency of reoperation of 3.26 % and 6.75%, respectively [OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.96); p = 0.04]. After a follow-up of 45.8 ± 26.6 months, 14/340 patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms/mucinous cystic neoplasms (IPMN/MCN, 4.11%) and 2/89 patients with PNET (2.24%) exhibited tumor recurrence. Local recurrence at the resection margin and reoccurrence of tumor growth in the remnant pancreas was comparable after DPPHR or PD [OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.178-5.34); p = 0.96].

CONCLUSIONS

DPPHR for benign, premalignant neoplasms provides a cure for patients with low risk of tumor recurrence and significantly fewer early surgery-related complications compared with PD. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign, premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection for Benign and Premalignant Tumors-a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Surgery-Associated Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.

RESULTS

Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.

CONCLUSION

DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.

Enucleation for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of enucleation (EN) for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMN) is poorly defined. This systematic review aims to review EN for BD-IPMN and compare it with pancreatic resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and central pancreatectomy).

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed using PRISMA guidelines, and included a search of PubMed, MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis comprising 991 patients with 293 EN patients and 698 resected patients. EN was most often performed for low grade (77%, 151/197) BD-IPMN's (99%, 251/253) of the pancreatic head (64%, 106/165), with a pooled mean diameter of 21 mm (SD 28 mm). EN was a shorter procedure (MD -115.8 min, CI -142.2 to -89.5 min, P=<0.001) with a lower rate of post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (EN 1% 2/144, Resection 5% 10/186, RR 0.32, CI 0.11 to 0.94, P = 0.043) and postoperative exocrine and endocrine insufficiency (P = <0.001 and P = 0.003 respectively) than resection.

CONCLUSION

EN for BD-IPMN's appears to be a reasonable alternative to resection in low risk BD-IPMN's, allowing preservation of exocrine and endocrine function with comparable reoperation and recurrence rates to resection. However, surveillance was indicated in these low risk patients based on current published guidelines.

Open and minimally invasive pancreatic neoplasms enucleation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic enucleation (pEN) as parenchyma-sparing procedure for small pancreatic neoplasms is quickly becoming the most common surgical option in such setting. Nowadays, pEN is frequently carried out through a minimally invasive approach either laparoscopic or robotic. Its impact on overall perioperative complications and pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still under evaluation. The scope of our systematic review is to assess pEN's perioperative outcomes and to evaluate the effect of the minimally invasive techniques over POPF and other surgical complications.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search (time-frame January 1999-September 2018), considering exclusively those studies which included at least 5 cases of either open or minimally invasive pEN. Data regarding postoperative outcome and POPF were extracted and analyzed. We defined postoperative morbidities by the Clavien-Dindo classification while POPF according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met the criteria selected, accounting for a study population of 2485 patients. 27.7% had a minimally invasive pEN. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 46.1% with 11.9% rated as severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). Mortality rate was 0.69%. The minimally invasive approach to pEN led to a statistically significant reduction of both the overall POPF rate (28.7% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001), and clinically significant B-C POPF (p < 0.027). The postoperative overall morbidity rate was clearly in favor of the minimally invasive approach (27.6% vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review confirms that pEN is a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of small benign or low-grade pancreatic neoplasms and it can be implemented with an acceptable morbidity rate along with low mortality. The minimally invasive approach is gaining widespread acceptance due to its supposed non-inferiority compared with the traditional open approach. In our review, it showed to be even better in terms of POPF incidence rate and short-term postoperative outcome. Still, such data need to be corroborated by randomized clinical trials.

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.