Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery.

METHODS

Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

RESULTS

This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Long-term outcome from a tertiary care centre

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy (WPD) is one of the most advanced minimally invasive procedures. In recent years, with advancements in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic WPD has been increasingly adopted as a safe and feasible technique. This study aims to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic WPD to open WPD in resectable ampullary, periampullary and head of pancreas malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent WPD from January 2015 to January 2021 at the department of surgical gastroenterology in a tertiary care medical college hospital was conducted. Patient demographics and pre-operative details, intraoperative parameters (operating time and blood loss), post-operative length of hospital stay, median intensive care unit (ICU) stay, time to resume oral diet, post-operative complications, interventional procedures, mortality, 3-year survival, 3 year recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients underwent WPD during our study period; 14 patients underwent laparoscopic WPD and 28 patients underwent open WPD. None required conversion. The majority of the patients had periampullary carcinoma in both the groups. Laparoscopic WPD showed a trend towards shorter ICU stays, hospital stays and surgical site infections (SSIs) compared to open WPD. The median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic WPD group (380 min) compared to the open group (285 min). However, median blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (250 mL vs. 300 mL). The pancreas-specific post-operative complications like delayed gastric emptying, post-operative pancreatic fistula or post-operative pancreatic haemorrhage did not differ significantly between the groups. All patients had R0 resection and the mean lymph node yield was comparable between the two groups (14.92 vs. 13.42). The reoperation rate or mortality rate did not show any statistical significance between the two groups. The overall survival was 46 months in the open group and 48 months in the laparoscopic group. Three-year survival was 74.1% in the open WPD group and 69.2% in the laparoscopic group. Three-year recurrence-free survival was 55.5% in the open group and 69.23% in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic WPD appears to be safe and feasible, with similar short-term and long-term survival outcomes. With a trend favouring laparoscopic WPD in terms of blood loss, hospital and ICU stay and post-operative SSIs, it should be offered to selected patients when the expertise is available.

Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers

Backgrounds/Aims

Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021.

Methods

Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop.

Results

In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing.

Conclusions

The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

The Implications of Readmission on Cost and Patient Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted.

DISCUSSION

Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pancreatoduodenectomy, the primary surgical strategy for managing cholangiocarcinoma, is executed via two distinct methodologies, namely minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The selection between these surgical options is critical, as it directly influences patient outcomes, encompassing both short-term recovery metrics and long-term survival rates. Despite the clinical significance of these procedures, there exists a notable void in the literature regarding a comprehensive comparison of MIPD and OPD, particularly in assessing their respective efficacies and complications. This lack of detailed comparative analysis has left a gap in evidence-based guidance for clinicians faced with the decision of choosing the most appropriate surgical approach for their patients. The absence of robust data comparing the two techniques underscores the necessity for a meta-analysis that rigorously examines and contrasts the outcomes associated with MIPD and OPD. By drawing upon a wide array of international studies, this research aims to shed light on the advantages and potential drawbacks of each method, thereby providing a more informed basis for surgical decision-making in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

The Marsden Morbidity Index: the derivation and validation of a simple risk index scoring system using cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables to predict morbidity in high-risk patients having major cancer surgery

Background

Morbidity and mortality risk prediction tools are increasingly being used as part of preoperative assessment of patients presenting for major abdominal surgery. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) can predict which patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are at risk of complications. The primary objective of this study was to identify preoperative variables including those derived from CPET, which were associated with inpatient morbidity in high-risk patients following major abdominal cancer surgery. The secondary objective was to use these variables to derive and validate a morbidity risk prediction tool.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive adult patients who had CPET as part of their preoperative work-up for major abdominal cancer surgery. Morbidity was a composite outcome, defined by the Clavien-Dindo score and/or the postoperative morbidity survey (POMS) score which was assessed on postoperative day 7. A risk prediction tool was devised using variables from the first analysis which was then applied prospectively to a matched cohort of patients.

Results

A total of 1398 patients were included in the first phase of the analysis between June 2010 and May 2017. Of these, 540 patients (38.6%) experienced postoperative morbidity. CPET variables deemed significant (p < 0.01) were anaerobic threshold (AT), maximal oxygen consumption at maximal exercise capacity (VO2 max), and ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide at anaerobic threshold (AT VE/VCO2). In addition to the CPET findings and the type of surgery the patient underwent, eight preoperative variables that were associated with postoperative morbidity were identified. These include age, WHO category, body mass index (BMI), prior transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke, chronic renal impairment, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cancer stage. Both sets of variables were then combined to produce a validated morbidity risk prediction scoring tool called the Marsden Morbidity Index. In the second phase of the analysis, this tool was applied prospectively to 424 patients between June 2017 and December 2018. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, this new model had a sensitivity of 74.2%, specificity of 78.1%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79.7%, and a negative predictive value of (NPV) of 79%.

Conclusion

Our study showed that of the CPET variables, AT, VO2 max, and AT VE/VCO2 were shown to be associated with postoperative surgical morbidity following major abdominal oncological surgery. When combined with a number of preoperative comorbidities commonly associated with increased risk of postoperative morbidity, we created a useful institutional scoring system for predicting which patients will experience adverse events. However, this system needs further validation in other centres performing oncological surgery.

Surgical approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: uncomplicated ends justify the means

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains the cornerstone of managing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreas head/neck, but it is associated with high morbidity. We hypothesize that, in absence of pancreatectomy-specific morbidity (PSM), minimally invasive PD (MIPD) provides improved short-term outcomes compared to open PD (OPD).

METHODS

NSQIP pancreatectomy-targeted database 2014-2019 was utilized. PSM was defined as the occurrence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and/or post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The cohort was divided into No-PSM and PSM groups. Propensity score match was applied in each group to compare outcomes of MIPD vs. OPD.

RESULTS

8,121 patients were selected. Patients were divided into No-PSM (N = 6267) and PSM (N = 1854) groups. In No-PSM group, we matched 1656 OPD to 552 MIPD patients. MIPD had longer operations (423 vs. 359 min; p < 0.001) but less overall morbidity (22.1% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.001) mostly attributed to less bleeding and sepsis. MIPD patients also had a one-day shorter median LOS (6 vs. 7 days; p = 0.005) and higher rates of home discharge (92.8% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.027). No difference was noted in mortality and 30-day readmission. In PSM group, 441 OPD were matched to 147 MIPD peers. MIPD had longer operations but without short-term benefits. General morbidity (61.2% vs. 61.9%), median LOS (12 vs. 12 days), mortality (2.7% vs. 1.8%), and readmission rates (32.7% vs. 26.5%) were similar. Same conclusions were drawn in the per-protocol analysis.

CONCLUSION

PSM is common following PD for PDAC. In the absence of PSM, MIPD is associated with less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS.

Anaesthesia for Pancreatic Surgery

This article provides a broad perspective on the salient perioperative issues encountered when caring for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery in the setting of pancreatic cancer. It describes the epidemiology of pancreatic cancer, the indications for and evolution of pancreatic resection surgery, the challenges faced perioperatively including patient selection, optimization, anesthetic considerations, postoperative analgesia, fluid management, and nutrition and discusses some of the common complications and their management. It finishes by outlining the future directions for research and development required to continue improving outcomes for these patients.

Multicenter comparison of totally laparoscopic and totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Propensity score and learning curve-matching analyses

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) despite emerging use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). The present study therefore compares perioperative outcomes of LPD and RPD patients, and evaluates safety and feasibility of MIPD.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter analysis evaluated MIPD patients through June 2020 performed by three experienced pancreatic surgeons at three different institutions. Perioperative outcomes were compared before and after propensity score-matching analyses, and learning curves based on operation time were used for additional matching analysis.

RESULTS

Of 362 patients, 282 underwent LPD and 80 underwent RPD. Open conversion rate was significantly higher in LPD (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). After matching, operation time (P = .001) and hospital stay (P = .027) were significantly shorter in RPD, but there were no differences in major complications and CR-POPF. Propensity score-matched comparison after learning curve attainment showed shorter operation time (P = .037) and hospital stay (P = .014) in RPD, and no differences in major complications and CR-POPF.

CONCLUSION

RPD had several advantages compared with LPD, including shorter operative time and hospital stay, and lower open conversion rate. Postoperative complications including CR-POPF showed comparable results in two groups. Both LPD and RPD seemed to be feasible and safe approaches in experienced hands.

Pancreatic cancer in 2021: What you need to know to win

Pancreatic cancer is one of the solid tumors with the worst prognosis. Five-year survival rate is less than 10%. Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment, but the tumor is often diagnosed at an advanced stage of the disease and surgery could be performed in a very limited number of patients. Moreover, surgery is still associated with high post-operative morbidity, while other therapies still offer very disappointing results. This article reviews every aspect of pancreatic cancer, focusing on the elements that can improve prognosis. It was written with the aim of describing everything you need to know in 2021 in order to face this difficult challenge.

Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a less invasive alternative to the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) approach used to treat periampullary tumors. However, previous studies examining the advantages of this surgery over OPD have produced mixed results. Here, a retrospective observational approach was used to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with periampullary tumors who underwent LPD or OPD at a single institution in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from hospital medical records collected over five years from patients that underwent OPD or LPD. Information on demographics, medical status, tumor characteristics, operative variables, complications, and mortality was examined. Survival curves were constructed and the stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery.

Results

Eighty-four patients aged 26–80 years were included. Twenty-two patients underwent LPD and 62 received OPD. The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group, and the LPD group was less likely to require a blood transfusion during surgery. While the short- and long-term survival rates did not differ for the procedures, the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and an age >65 years.

Conclusion

Both LPD and OPD procedures for treating periampullary tumors exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival rates observed. Future studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to further examine the treatment outcomes following these surgical approaches.

•

The OPD group was significantly more likely to require blood transfusion as compared to the LPD group (p=0.04).

•

The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group (p < 0.01).

•

Factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and age group > 65 years.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study of 200 cases and the optimization of the single-center learning curve

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely used in several centers. This study analyzed the postoperative complications rate curve, possible cause, and solution of LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2019, the study included 213 and 204 patients undergoing OPD and LPD, respectively. Postoperative outcomes, complications, and complication risk, along with operation time were analyzed, and the learning curve was determined.

Results

The OPD group (378.7±8.98 min) had shorter operation time than the LPD group (402.5±7.12 min) (P=0.037). Blood loss was significantly lower in the LPD group (389.9±19.05 mL) than in the OPD group (530.1±33.55 mL) (P<0.001). The incidence of biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was higher in the LPD group (2.9%) than in the OPD group (0.5%) (P=0.0495). The LPD group showed lower lung infection (7.4% vs. 17.4%, P=0.037), incision infection (1% vs. 8.5%, P<0.001), and anal exhaust time (3.35±0.07 vs. 4.05±0.07 days, P<0.001) than the OPD group. The biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was strongly correlated with the pancreatic fistula (B/C) (R=0.6410), intraperitoneal infection (R=0.6126) and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 (R=0.7403). According to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve, pancreatic fistula had a negative K value in 44 cases, biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage had a negative K value in 46 cases, and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 had a negative K value in 40 cases. The learning curve for LPD has an inflection point in 86 cases.

Conclusions

LPD is safe and effective for patients with pancreatic cancer, and has a long learning curve and improved postoperative complications in 50 cases. This study’s results will help in reducing the complication rates of the first 50 consecutive cases of LPD.

Clinical application of "Double R" anastomosis technique in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy procedure

ABSTRACT

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely used as a treatment for periampullary tumors and pancreatic head tumors. However, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), which significantly affects mortality and length of hospital stay of patients, remains one of the most common and serious complications following LPD. Though numerous technical modifications for pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) have been proposed, POPF is still the "Achilles heel" of LPD.To reduce POPF rate and other postoperative complications following LPD by exploring the best approach to manage with the pancreatic remnant, a novel duct-to-mucosa anastomosis technique named Double Layer Running Suture (Double R) for the PJ was established. During 2018 and 2020, a totally 35 patients who underwent LPD with Double R were included, data on the total operative time, PJ duration, estimated blood loss, recovery of bowel function, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed.The average duration of surgery was (380 ± 69) minutes. The mean time for performing PJ was (34 ± 5) minutes. The average estimated blood loss was (180 ± 155) mL. The overall POPF rate was 8.6% (3/35), including 8.6% (3/35) for the biochemical leak, 0% (0/35) for Grade B, and 0% (0/35) for Grade C. No patient suffered from biliary fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, and intra-abdominal infection, the 30-day mortality was 0%.Double R anastomosis is potentially a safe, reliable, and rapid anastomosis with a low rate of POPF and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage. It provides surgeons more options when performing LPD. However, its safety and effectiveness should be verified further by a larger prospective multicenter study.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

BACKGROUND

LPD is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science for RCTs comparing minimally invasive to OPD for adults with benign or malignant disease requiring elective pancreaticoduodenectomy. Main outcomes were 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph nodes harvested), and operative times. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool and the GRADE approach (Prospero registration ID: CRD42019120363).

RESULTS

Three RCTs with a total of 224 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed there were no significant differences regarding 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, LOS, POPF, DGE, PPH, bile leak, reoperation, readmission, or oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. Operative times were significantly longer for LPD {MD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 95.44 minutes (24.06-166.81 minutes)}, whereas blood loss was lower for LPD [MD (CI) -150.99 mL (-168.54 to -133.44 mL)]. Certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

At current level of evidence, LPD shows no advantage over OPD. Limitations include high risk of bias and moderate to very low certainty of evidence. Further studies should focus on patient safety during LPD learning curves and the potential role of robotic surgery.

Totally Laparoscopic Whipple's Operation: Initial Report from the Caribbean

Oncologic surgery in the Caribbean has evolved over the past decade, with increasing reports of advanced minimally invasive operations being performed. However, the minimally invasive approach has not been used for peri-ampullary lesions. This is because a laparoscopic Whipple's operation is a technically demanding and time-consuming operation. We report the first case of a totally laparoscopic Whipple's operation to be performed in the Caribbean.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.

Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (TJDBPS01): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex abdominal operations to perform, and it is usually conducted for tumours of the periampullary region and chronic pancreatitis. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively being developed for pancreatic surgery, first with the advent of hybrid-laparoscopy and recently with total laparoscopic surgery. Issues including the safety and efficacy of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently being debated. Studies comparing these two surgical techniques are emerging, and large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking but are clearly required.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TJDBPS01 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial in 14 centres with pancreatic surgery experts who have performed ≥104 TLPDs and OPDs. A total of 656 patients who will undergo PD are randomly allocated to the TLPD group or OPD group in a 1:1 ratio. The trial hypothesis is that TLPD has superior or equivalent safety and advantages in postoperative recovery compared with OPD. The primary outcome is the postoperative length of stay.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Instituitional Review Board Approval of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology has approved this trial and will be routinely monitoring the trial at frequent intervals, as will an independent third-party organisation. Any results from this trial (publications, conference presentations) will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03138213.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Surgical techniques and postoperative management to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most severe complications after pancreatic surgeries. POPF develops as a consequence of pancreatic juice leakage from a surgically exfoliated surface and/or anastomotic stump, which sometimes cause intraperitoneal abscesses and subsequent lethal hemorrhage. In recent years, various surgical and perioperative attempts have been examined to reduce the incidence of POPF. We reviewed several well-designed studies addressing POPF-related factors, such as reconstruction methods, anastomotic techniques, stent usage, prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage, and somatostatin analogs, after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, and we assessed the current status of POPF. In addition, we also discussed the current status of POPF in minimally invasive surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries, and robotic surgeries.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic outcomes and long-term survival

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

Substantial evidence demonstrated that LPD is technically safe and feasible with perioperative outcomes equivalent to that of OPD. However, for patients with malignancy, especially PDAC, the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of patients who underwent LPD remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Studies on LPD for the treatment of PDAC published before December 25, 2018 were searched online. The oncologic outcomes (e.g., numbers of lymph nodes retrieved, negative margin (R0) resection), and long-term survival (postoperative survival from 1 to 5 year) of LPD were compared to that of ODP.

RESULTS

After screening 1507 studies, six comparative cohort studies, which reported the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of patients with PDAC were included. No significant difference was found between LPD and OPD regarding lymph nodes harvested (OR 1.96, 95% CI - 1.17 to 5.09, p = 0.22), R0 rate (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.06, p = 0.05), number of positive lymph nodes (OR - 0.44, 95% CI - 1.06 to 0.17, p = 0.16), rate of adjuvant treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59, p = 0.86) and time to adjuvant treatment (OR - 6.21, 95% CI - 16.00 to 3.59, p = 0.21). LPD showed similar 1-year (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.65, p = 0.28), and 2-year survival (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.66, p = 0.13) to that of OPD. The 3-year (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02, p = 0.007), 4-year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.93, p = 0.04), and 5-year survival (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.31, p = 0.001) were significantly longer in LPD group.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of PDAC, the oncologic outcomes of LPD were equivalent to that of OPD; LPD seemed promising regarding the postoperative long-term survival.

Discharge destination following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A NSQIP analysis of predictive factors and post-discharge outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a complex surgical procedure. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated non-home discharge destination and to characterize outcomes after non-home discharge.

METHODS

10,719 pancreaticoduodenectomy cases contained in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Targeted Pancreatectomy dataset (years 2014-2016) were examined with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

1336 patients (12.5%) were discharged to rehabilitation, skilled care, or acute care facilities. Preoperative factors significantly associated with non-home discharge on multivariate analysis were female gender, older age, elevated BMI, poor functional status or dyspnea, smoking, low albumin, COPD, and ascites. Intraoperative factors significantly associated with non-home discharge destination on multivariate analysis were longer operative time, open surgery, softer pancreatic texture, drain placement, and jejunostomy tube placement. A nomogram was generated for estimating probability of non-home discharge immediately after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative and intraoperative factors can be used to predict probability of non-home discharge immediately after completion of pancreaticoduodenectomy.