Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis of Outcome With Experience and Systematic Review of the Literature

Safe implementation of a minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary program, a narrative review and institutional experience

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches to hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations have expanded worldwide. As surgeons and medical centers contemplate initiating and expanding minimally invasive surgical (MIS) programs for complex HPB surgical operations, there are many factors to consider. This review highlights the key components of developing an MIS HPB program and shares our recent institutional experience with the adoption and expansion of an MIS approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center

Background

Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear.

Methods

The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined.

Results

Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time.

Conclusions

In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-021-08306-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Current statement and safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the pancreas

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of a minimally invasive approach is accumulating thanks to prospective and randomized controlled studies. Minimally invasive surgery provides advantages to the surgeon due to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot, but should be considered only in selected patients and in high-volume centers. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant tumors has established a secure position over open distal pancreatectomy, since it is associated with a shorter hospital stay, reduced blood loss, and equivalent complication rates. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma appears to be a feasible, safe, and oncologically equivalent technique in experienced hands. On the other hand, the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The choice of either technique among open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches depends on surgeons' experience and hospital resources with a focus on patient safety. Further studies are needed to prove the perioperative and oncological advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery in the pancreas. Here, we review the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and its safe implementation.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Individual Surgeon Experience on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies: Collective Experience of Multiple Surgeons at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Presently, there are limited studies analyzing the learning experience of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies (MIDPs) and these frequently focused on a single surgeon or institution learning curve. This study aims to critically analyze the impact of individual surgeon experience on the outcomes of MIDP based on the collective experiences of multiple surgeons at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 90 consecutive MIDP from 2006 to 2018 was performed. These cases were performed by 13 surgeons over various time periods. The cohort was stratified into 4 groups according to individual surgeon experience. The case experience of these surgeons was as follows: <5 cases (n=8), 6 to 10 cases (n=2), 11 to 15 cases (n=2), and 30 cases (n=1).

RESULTS

The distribution of the 90 cases were as follows: experience <5 cases (n=44), 6 to 10 cases (n=20), 11 to 15 cases (n=11), and 15 cases (n=15). As individual surgeons gained increasing experience, this was significantly associated with increasingly difficult resections performed, increased frequency of the use of robotic assistance and decreasing open conversion rates (20.5% vs. 100% vs. 9.1% vs. 0%, P=0.038). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest that the outcomes of MIDP in terms of open conversion rate could be optimized after 15 cases. Subset analyses suggested that the learning curve for MIDP of low difficulty was only 5 cases.

CONCLUSION

MIDP can be safely adopted today and the individual surgeon learning curve for MIDP of all difficulties in terms of open conversion rate can be overcome after 15 cases.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) has been expanding in the past decade. Excellent outcomes have been reported, however, safety concerns exist. The aim of this study was to define prerequisites for performing MIPR with the objective to guide safe implementation of MIPR into clinical practice.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for literature concerning the implementation of MIPR between 1946 and November 2018. Quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

RESULTS

Overall, 1150 studies were screened, of which 32 studies with 8519 patients were included in this systematic review. Training programs for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have been described with acceptable outcomes during the learning curve and improved outcomes after training. Learning curve studies have revealed an association between growing experience and improving perioperative outcomes. In addition, the association between higher center volume and lower mortality and morbidity has been reported by several studies.

CONCLUSION

When embarking on MIPR, it is recommended to participate in a dedicated training program, to assure a sufficient volume, especially when implementing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, (20 procedures recommended annually), and prospectively collect and closely monitor outcomes for continuous quality assessment, this can be achieved through institutional databases and participation in national or international registries.

Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial

Background

Studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss and recovery. Only one randomized study is available, which showed enhanced functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP.

Methods

Consecutive patients evaluated at a multidisciplinary tumour board and planned for standard distal pancreatectomy were randomized prospectively to LDP or ODP in an unblinded, parallel-group, single-centre superiority trial. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital stay.

Results

Of 105 screened patients, 60 were randomized and 58 (24 women, 41 per cent) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; there were 29 patients of mean age 68 years in the LDP group and 29 of mean age 63 years in the ODP group. The main indication was cystic pancreatic lesions, followed by neuroendocrine tumours. The median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (i.q.r. 4–5) days in the laparoscopic group versus 6 (5–7) days in the open group (P = 0·002). Functional recovery was attained after a median of 4 (i.q.r. 2–6) versus 6 (4–7) days respectively (P = 0·007), and duration of surgery was 120 min in both groups (P = 0·482). Blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery: median 50 (i.q.r. 25–150) ml versus 100 (100–300) ml in the open group (P = 0·018). No difference was found in the complication rates (Clavien–Dindo grade III or above: 4 versus 8 patients respectively). The rate of delayed gastric emptying and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

LDP is associated with shorter hospital stay than ODP, with shorter time to functional recovery and less bleeding. Registration number: ISRCTN26912858 (www.isrctn.com).

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

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.

Cusum analysis for learning curve of videothoracoscopic lobectomy

Background

Video assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lobectomy has a demanding learning curve due to its technical complexity and risk of uncontrollable bleeding. We investigated the case number required for gaining technical proficiency by applying cumulative sum analysis on initial VATS lobectomy operations of a single surgeon.

Methods

CALGB definition was used for the definition of VATS lobectomy. The data of the initial cases evaluated and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was applied to duration of the operations and length of hospital stay.

Results

Fifty-eight patients underwent VATS lobectomy. Of those 51 were malignant and 7 were benign. Fifty-five of the procedures were lobectomy, 2 were inferior bi-lobectomy and 1 was left upper lobectomy with chest wall resection. CUSUM analysis reached to proficiency at 27 cases for duration of the operations.

Conclusions

The length of learning curve depends on previous experience of the surgeon on open lobectomy and simpler VATS operations, potential number of VATS lobectomy cases and VATS capability of the surgeon. Depending on these factors, it is possible to obtain technical proficiency with an inferior number of procedures compared with existing literature (50-200).

Does the Introduction of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Jeopardize Patient Safety and Well-Being?

Background/Purpose:

Despite retrospective data indicating short-term superiority for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy, the implementation of the procedure has been slow. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients operated with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy during the early phase of introduction are at higher risk for complications than patients operated with open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods:

A retrospective single-center analysis of patients operated with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (n = 37) from the introduction of the procedure and comparison regarding demographic data, preoperative data, operative factors, and postoperative outcomes to patients operated with open distal pancreatectomy was done.

Results:

Operation duration shortened (195 vs 143 min, p = 0.04) and severe complications reduced (37% vs 6%, p = 0.02) significantly in the laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy group between the first half of the study and the second half. Blood loss was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy group (75 mL) than in the open distal pancreatectomy group (550 mL), while complication rate and hospital stay as well as the percentage of radical resections were the same.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be introduced without jeopardizing patient safety and well-being during the early learning curve. The procedures should be compared in a prospective randomized manner.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy with or without Preservation of the Spleen for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare tumor of the pancreas. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a feasible and safe procedure, and successful spleen preservation rates are higher using a laparoscopic approach. We hypothesized that certain patients with SPN would be good candidates for laparoscopic surgery; however, few surgeons have reported laparoscopic DP for SPN. We discuss the preoperative assessment and surgical simulation for two SPN cases. A simulation was designed because we consider that a thorough preoperative understanding of the procedure based on three-dimensional image analysis is important for successful laparoscopic DP. We also discuss the details of the actual laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation that we performed for our two SPN cases. It is critical to use appropriate instruments at appropriate points in the procedure; surgical instruments are numerous and varied, and surgeons should maximize the use of each instrument. Finally, we discuss the key techniques and surgical pitfalls in laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation. We conclude that experience alone is inadequate for successful laparoscopic surgery.