Getting Started with Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is It Worth It?

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

RESULTS

A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy has increased in recent years, but the risk of postoperative VTE is undefined. We aimed to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy using an administrative dataset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted pancreatectomy database (2016-2018) were identified. VTE was compared between patients who underwent open or minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy directly and after propensity score matching 1:1 for demographics, comorbidities, and peri-/intra-operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 12,227 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy during the study period (open: n = 11,217; minimally invasive: n = 1010). Before matching, the VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (5.2% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.033), and minimally invasive resection was independently associated with VTE (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.09-2.06). After matching, there were 916 patients per group without differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy had longer median operative times (422 vs. 348 min). The VTE rate remained higher following minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy after matching (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.018), mainly driven by a higher DVT rate (3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher postoperative VTE rate compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: Initial single center experience

Backgrounds/Aims

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the gold standard for the treatment of periampullary tumors. Many specialized centers have adopted the totally laparoscopic or hybrid laparoscopic PD (LPD). However, this procedure has not yet been standardized and serious debate is taking place towards its safety and feasibility. Herein, we report our recent experience whit hybrid-LPD.

Methods

During 2019 in our department 56 PD were performed and 21 (37.5%) underwent hybrid-LPD. We have retrospectively reviewed the short-term outcomes of these patients.

Results

Main indication was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (71,4%). The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were respectively 425 min (range, 226 to 576) and 317 ml (range 60 to 800 ml). Conversion to an open procedure was required in 4 patients (19%): 2 with suspected vein involvement, 1 for mesenteric panniculitis and 1 for biliary injury. The post-operative complication rate was 42.8% (9/21). Regarding post-operative pancreatic fistula, three patients (14.2%) had grade B and 1 grade C (4.7%). Median length of hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-23) and 90- days mortality was 4.7%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.7 (range 12 to 26). The rate of margins R0 was 80%; R1 ＞0<1 mm was 10.5% and R1 0 mm was 9.5%.

Conclusions

Hydrid-LPD is safe and feasible. Careful patient selection and increasing experience can reduce the risk of post-operative complications.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Hybrid and Totally Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complicated procedure accompanied with high morbidity. Hybrid LPD is usually used as an alternative/transitional approach. This study aimed to prove whether the hybrid procedure is a safe procedure during a surgeon's learning curve of LPD. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 48 hybrid LPD patients and 62 TLPD patients selected from January 2016 to December 2018; their demographics, surgical outcomes, and oncological data were retrospectively collected. Patient follow-up for the study continued until February 2020. RESULTS Patient demographics and baseline parameters were well balanced between the 2 groups. Intraoperative conditions, overall operation time was shorter for TLPD compared to hybrid LPD (407.79 minutes versus 453.29 minutes, respectively; P=0.035) and blood loss was less in TLPD patients compared to hybrid LPD patients (100.00 mL versus 300.00 mL, respectively; P<0.001). There was no difference in transfusion rates between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 16.7% versus TLPD 4.8%; P=0.084). Postoperative outcomes and intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in the hybrid LPD patient group (hybrid LPD 1-day versus TLPD 0-day, P=0.002) and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the 2 groups (P=0.503). Reoperation rates, in-hospital, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups (P=0.276, 1.000, 1.000, 0.884, respectively). Surgical site infection, bile leak, Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥3, delayed gastric emptying, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulae, and grade B/C post pancreatectomy hemorrhage were not different between the 2 groups (P=0.526, 0.463, 0.220, 0.089, 0.165, 0.757, respectively). The tumor size, margin status, lymph nodes harvested, and metastasis were similar in the 2 groups (P=0.767, 0.438, 0.414, 0.424, respectively). In addition, the median overall survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 29.0 months versus TLPD 30.0 months, P=0.996) as were the progression-free survival rates (hybrid LPD 11.0 months versus TLPD 12.0 months, P=0.373) CONCLUSIONS Hybrid LPD was comparable to TLPD. Hybrid LPD could be performed safely when some surgeons first started LPD (during the operative learning curve), while for skilled surgeons, TLPD could be applied initially.

Lessons Learned from the Introduction of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques have been suggested to achieve enhanced recovery and improved outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This study describes our experience and a stepwise technical implementation of the laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) during early introduction in 2016. Methods: A team of three hepatopancreaticobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and with advanced laparoscopic skills started a proctor-guided program with LPD. The first 20 carefully selected cases were prospectively reviewed and compared with a matched OPD cohort. Results: In 20 months, 20 minimally invasive PDs were performed. Reviewing the first 10 LPD cases, 7 patients (70%) had anastomosis-related complications, versus 16% in OPD (P = .001). After consulting an international LPD expert, the team switched to a hybrid technique consisting of LPD followed by open reconstruction through midline minilaparotomy (LPD-OR). In the following 10 cases of LPD-OR, no anastomosis-related complications did occur (P = .342 OPD versus LPD-OR). Conclusion: Safe introduction of new techniques in minimally invasive major abdominal surgery is imperative. Based on our single-center experience, LPD-OR may be safer in the earliest phase of the learning curve of minimally invasive PD, as part of a stepwise implementation toward the fully laparoscopic technique.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC.

METHODS

The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for PDAC between January 2013 and September 2017 were retrieved. Their postoperative outcomes and survival were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients were included. After a 2:1 matching, 93 cases in the OPD group and 55 in the LPD group were identified. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE), particularly grade B/C DGE, occurred less frequently in the LPD group than in the OPD group (1.8% vs. 36.6%, P < 0.001; 1.8% vs. 22.6%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LPD group than in the OPD group (49.1% vs. 71.0%, P = 0.008), whereas the rates of major complications were similar (10.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.590). In addition, the median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (20.0 vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

LPD was found to be technically feasible with efficacy similar to OPD for patients with PDAC.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) performed through the laparoscopic route or by open surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic PD is being progressively performed in selected patients.

METHODS

An open-label single-center RCT was conducted between February 2013 and September 2017. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were operative time, transfusion requirements, specific pancreatic complications (pancreatic or biliary fistula, pancreatic hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, comprehensive complication index (CCI) score, poor quality outcome (PQO), and the quality of pathologic resection. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat basis.

RESULTS

Of 86 patients assessed for PD, 66 were randomized (34 laparoscopic approach, 32 open surgery). Conversion to an open procedure was needed in 8 (23.5%) patients. Laparoscopic versus open PD was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (median 13.5 vs. 17 d; P = 0.024) and longer median operative time (486 vs. 365 min; P = 0.0001). The laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly better outcomes regarding Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (5 vs. 11 patients; P = 0.04), CCI score (20.6 vs. 29.6; P = 0.038), and PQO (10 vs. 14 patients; P = 0.041). No significant differences in transfusion requirements, pancreas-specific complications, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, and resection margins between the two approaches were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD versus open surgery is associated with a shorter LOS and a more favorable postoperative course while maintaining oncological standards of a curative-intent surgical resection.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN93168938.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Initial experience with laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the treatment of periampullary tumours: single institution experience with the first 30 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised about the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during the early learning phase. In this study, we present our initial experience with MIS for periampullary tumours.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the first 30 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (LS)/robotic surgery (RS) for periampullary tumours between 2014 and 2017.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients underwent PD, including three total pancreatectomies (TPs) and three underwent palliative bypasses. Twenty underwent LS, of which 18 were hybrid PDs, including two TPs and two bypasses. Ten patients underwent RS, of which nine were PDs, including one TP and one bypass. Five of 10 RSs were totally MIS procedures. There were four PDs with venous resection, of which three were by RS. There were four (13.3%) open conversions all in the LS cohort. There were five (16.7%) major (>grade 2) morbidities, including three pancreatic fistulas (two grade B and one grade C). There was no 30-day and one (3.3%) 90-day mortality. Comparison between RS and LS demonstrated that RS had a higher likelihood of being completed via totally MIS (five (50%) versus 0, P = 0.002), tended to have a shorter post-operative stay (eight (range 6-36) versus 14.5 (range 6-62) days, P = 0.058) but tended to be associated with a longer operation time (670 (range 500-930) versus 577 (range 235-715) min, P = 0.056).

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrated that both LS and RS can be safely adopted for the treatment of periampullary tumours. The learning curve for RS seemed to be shorter than LS as we could transition more quickly from hybrid PDs to totally MIS safely.

Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases

Background

Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines.

Methods

Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision.

Results

Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250-1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6-36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusion

Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy

The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11,854 OPD) were included. MIPD was associated with longer operative times (P < 0.01) and increased mortality (P < 0.01), but decreased estimated blood loss (P < 0.01), decreased delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.01), increased R0 resection rate (P < 0.01), decreased wound infection (P = 0.03) and shorter hospital stays (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in BMI (P = 0.43), tumor size (P = 0.17), lymph nodes harvest (P = 0.57), POPF (P = 0.84), reoperation (P = 0.25) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.82) for MIPD compared with OPD. Although there was an increased operative cost (P < 0.01) for MIPD compared with OPD, the postoperative cost was less (P < 0.01) with the similar total costs (P = 0.28). MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with the potential advantage of being minimally invasive. However, MIPD should be performed in high-volume centers and more randomized-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the appropriate indications of MIPD.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction.

RESULTS

From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD.

CONCLUSION

MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.

Long-sleeve-working-port assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy-A new technique in laparoscopic surgery

•

The new technique of using a long-sleeve-working-port in laparoscopic surgery can facilitate complicated operations like laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

•

This technique offers both advantages of minimally invasive surgery and the use of ordinary instruments for open surgery through the working port.

•

This working port is cheap and easy to use.

Introduction

Advances in technology and instruments have made laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) feasible. Unfortunately, this operation is technically very challenging and it is not widely accepted by laparoscopic surgeons.

Presentation of case

A 59-year-old woman underwent LPD using a newly invented long-sleeve-working-port (LSWP) for a mucinous cystadenoma of the head of pancreas. This case report describes this port and its use on this patient.

Discussion

LSWP is a new invention to facilitate difficult laparoscopic operations. Through this LSWP, ordinary instruments used in open surgery can be used to overcome the limitation encountered in conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Conculsion

LSWP made complex laparoscopic surgery less complex.

Laparoscopic-adapted Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex procedure that is becoming increasingly popular among surgeons. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most feared specific complication in reconstruction after PD. The Blumgart anastomosis (BA) has been established as one of the safest anastomosis for pancreas remnant reconstruction, with low rates of POPF and postoperative complications. The procedure for performing this anastomosis by laparoscopic approach has not been reported to date.

METHODS

We describe our technique of LPD with laparoscopic-adapted BA (LapBA) and present the results obtained. A case-matched analysis with open cases of BA is also reported.

RESULTS

Since February 2013 to February 2016, thirteen patients were operated of LapBA. An equivalent cohort of open PD patients was obtained by matching sex, ASA, pancreas consistency and main pancreatic duct diameter. Severe complications (grades III-IV) and length of stay were significantly lesser in LapBA group. No differences in POPF, readmission, reoperation rate and mortality were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The LapBA technique we propose can facilitate the pancreatic reconstruction after LPD. In this case-matched study, LPD shows superior results than open PD in terms of less severe postoperative complications and shorter length of stay. Randomized control trials are required to confirm these results.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

While an increasing number of open procedures are now routinely performed laparoscopically or robotically, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging operations in abdomen. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current status and development of MIPD.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched to identify studies up to and including Feb 2016 using the keywords "laparoscopic", or "laparoscopy", or "hand-assisted", or "minimally invasive", or "robotic", or "da vinci" combined with "pancreaticoduodenectomy", or "duodenopancreatectomy", "Whipple", or "pancreatic resection". Articles written in English with more than 10 cases were included for review.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles representing 2209 patients were included for review. The weighted average operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 427.3 min and 289.4 mL respectively. A total of 375 patients required conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with an overall conversion rate of 17.8%. The postoperative severe complications (the Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III) occurred in 3.8%-33.0% patients, with an overall severe morbidity of 14.3%. Particularly, the overall incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 8.0%. There were 26 perioperative death cases in total, with an overall postoperative mortality rate of 2.3%. The weighted average number of collected lymph nodes was 17.9, and R0 resection ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. Comparisons between MIPD and OPD showed that MIPD increased operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss and shortened the length of hospital stay, but the overall morbidity and mortality were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD is technically feasible and safe in highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes. But concerns such as long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness analysis, and learning curve analysis should be fully demonstrated before the popularization of this challenging procedure.