Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: a review of 51 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:486-490. [PMID: 24300922 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182a4bf69]

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck

AIMS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP.

METHODS

In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy?

(1) Background: The jejunum is primarily used for distal pancreatic stump anastomoses after central pancreatectomy (CP). The study aimed to compare duct-to-mucosa (WJ) and distal pancreatic invagination into jejunum anastomoses (PJ) after CP. (2) Methods: All patients with CP and jejunal anastomoses (between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2022) were retrospectively assessed and compared. (3) Results: 29 CP were analyzed: WJ-12 patients (41.4%) and PJ-17 patients (58.6%). The operative time was significantly higher in the WJ vs. PJ group of patients (195 min vs. 140 min, p = 0.012). Statistically higher rates of patients within the high-risk fistula group were observed in the PJ vs. WJ group (52.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.003). However, no differences were observed between the groups regarding the overall, severe, and specific postpancreatectomy morbidity rates (p values ≥ 0.170). (4) Conclusions: The WJ and PJ anastomoses after CP were comparable in terms of morbidity rates. However, a PJ anastomosis appeared to fit better for patients with high-risk fistula scores. Thus, a personalized, patient-adapted technique for the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis with the jejunum after CP should be considered. At the same time, future research should explore gastric anastomoses' emerging role.

Predictors of postoperative complications and readmissions in laparoscopic pancreas resection: Results of a cohort 105 consecutive cases. A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas (LRP) has been implemented to a varying degree because it is technically demanding and requires a long learning curve. In the present study we analyze the risk factors for complications and hospital readmissions in a single center study of 105 consecutive LRPs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using a prospective database. Data were collected on age, gender, BMI, ASA score, type of surgery, histologic type, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, degree of severity and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

The cohort included 105 patients, 63 females and 42 males with a median age and BMI of 58 (53-70) and 25.5 (22,2-27.9) respectively. Eighteen (17%) central pancreatectomies, 5 (4.8%) enucleations, 81 (77.6%) distal pancreatectomies and one total pancreatectomy were performed. Fifty-six patients (53.3%) experienced some type of complication, of which 13 (12.3%) were severe (Clavien-Dindo > IIIb) and 11 (10.5%) patients were readmitted in the first 30 days after surgery. In the univariate analysis, age, male gender, ASA score, central pancreatectomy and operative time were significantly associated with the development of complications (P <0.05). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR 7.97; 95% CI 1.08-58.88)), severe complications (OR 59.40; 95% CI, 7.69-458.99), and the development of intrabdominal collections (OR 8.97; 95% CI, 1.28-63.02)) were associated with hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, male gender, ASA score, operative time and central pancreatectomy are associated with a higher incidence of complications. Male gender, severe complications and intraabdominal collections are associated with more hospital readmissions.

Laparoscopic Central Pancreatectomy With Pancreaticogastrostomy: Our Initial Experience

Pancreatic parenchyma-preserving procedures performed for benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the neck or body of this organ significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative exocrine and endocrine insufficiency compared to distal pancreatectomy. Tumor enucleation spares pancreatic parenchyma, but it can have positive surgical margins, and postoperative leakage after it is significant. We present our initial successful experience of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy. A patient was operated on for cystadenoma of the pancreatic neck. The organ was transected proximally with a linear stapler but distally with ultrasonic shares, and a caudal stump was used for the creation of the pancreaticogastrostomy. The postoperative period was uneventful. The four-month follow-up did not reveal any exocrine or endocrine insufficiency.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Central Pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y Pancreaticojejunal Anastomosis-Report of Two Cases

Background  Central pancreatectomy (CP), a partial resection of the pancreas, is indicated for the excision of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the pancreas, when located at the neck or the proximal body. Specifically, CP is preferable in functional NET and in nonfunctional sized 1 to 2 cm or/with proliferation marker Ki67 < 20% (Grade I/II). Postoperative leakage from the remaining pancreas constitutes the most frequent complication of CP (up to 63%). The aim of our study was to share the experience of our center in CP for NET, with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis. Methods  In 1 year, we performed CP in two patients, following the aforementioned criteria. They presented with tumor of the body of the pancreas, which was found in random check with computed tomography, with negative hormonal blood tests and they underwent magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound/fine-needle biopsy/pathological examination. Results  The patients underwent CP with Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunal anastomosis of the distal pancreatic stump and jejunal patch of the proximal pancreatic stump. Histological exam revealed NET sized 2.8 cm and 1.45 cm, Grade I and II, respectively. Postoperatively both patients developed small pancreatic leakage, which did not affect their physical condition and stopped after 20 and 30 days. No one needed pancreatic enzymes supplements or developed new-onset diabetes mellitus. Conclusion  CP provided adequate, functional remaining pancreatic tissue in both patients. Small leakages were treated conservatively and retreated without septic complications. As a result, CP might be considered as safe and effective technique for pancreatic neck/proximal body NET.

Robotic pancreatic resection. Personal experience with 105 cases

OBJECTIVE

the first robotic pancreatic resection in Brazil was performed by our team in 2008. Since March 2018, a new policy prompted us to systematically employ the robot in all minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The aim of this paper is to review our experience with robotic pancreatic resection.

METHODS

all patients who underwent robotic pancreatic resection from March 2018 through December 2019 were identified. Descriptive data were collected. Preoperative variables included age, sex, and indication for surgery. Intraoperative variables included operative time, bleeding, blood transfusion.

RESULTS

105 patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy. Median age was 60.5 years old. Fifty-five patients were female. 51 patients underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomies, 34 distal pancreatectomy. Morbidity was 23.8%, mainly related to postoperative pancreatic fistula and one death occurred (mortality of 0.9%). Three patients (2.8%) were converted to open surgery. Four patients had delayed gastric emptying and two presented bleeding. Twenty-four patients had pancreatic fistula that was treated conservatively with late removal of the pancreatic drain. No patient required percutaneous drainage, reintervention or hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

the robotic platform is useful for the reconstruction of the alimentary tract after pancreatoduodenectomy or after central pancreatectomy. It may increase the preservation of the spleen during distal pancreatectomies. Pancreas sparing techniques, such as enucleation, resection of uncinate process and central pancreatectomy, should be used to avoid exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency. Robotic resection of the pancreas is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons with experience in both open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

Robotic central pancreatectomy

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing procedure that can be utilized in the resection of tumors of the neck or the proximal body of the pancreas. Among 872 open CP reported since 1993, the mean rate of morbidity was 43.2% and mean rate of mortality was 0.24%. The mean pancreatic fistula rate was 28%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 19%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 2% and the average incidence of exocrine insufficiency experienced by patients undergoing open CP was 4.4%. Also, the mean length of hospital stay was around 15 days. In comparison, a total of 100 patients underwent either laparoscopic or robotic CP with a mean rate of morbidity of 37.3% and mean rate of mortality of 0%. Also, the mean rate of development of pancreatic fistula was 36.6%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 17%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 1.5%. None of the patients included in these series developed any postoperative exocrine insufficiency. The mean length of hospital stay was around 13 days. Standard procedures such as DP and PD are associated with lower rates of short-term morbidity such as pancreatic fistula development but are also accompanied with a higher rate of long-term endocrine and exocrine insufficiency due to the significant loss of normal pancreatic parenchyma when compared to CP. It can be inferred, albeit from limited and small retrospective studies and case reports, that conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to CP are safe and feasible in highly specialized centers.

MANAGEMENT OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Pathogenesis and management of hypoglycemia

Glucose is the main substrate utilized by the brain and as such multiple regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain glucose concentrations. When these mechanisms fail or are defective, hypoglycemia ensues. Due to these robust mechanisms, hypoglycemia is uncommon and usually occurs in the setting of the treatment of diabetes using glucose-lowering agents such as sulfonylureas or insulin. The symptoms of hypoglycemia are non-specific and as such it is important to confirm hypoglycemia by establishing the presence of Whipple's triad before embarking on an evaluation for hypoglycemia. When possible, evaluation of hypoglycemia should be carried out at the time of spontaneous occurrence of symptoms. If this is not possible then one would want to create the circumstances under which symptoms occur. In cases where symptoms occur in the post absorptive state, a 72-h fast should be performed. Likewise, if symptoms occur after a meal then a mixed meal study may be the test of choice. The causes of endogenous hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia include insulinoma, post-bariatric hypoglycemia and noninsulinoma pancreatogenous hypoglycemia syndrome. Autoimmune hypoglycemia syndrome is clinically and biochemically similar to insulinoma but associated with high levels of insulin antibodies and plasma insulin. Other important causes of hypoglycemia include medications, non-islet cell tumors, hormonal deficiencies, critical illness and factitious hypoglycemia. We provide an overview of the pathogenesis and management of hypoglycemia in these situations.

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.

[Pancreaticogastrostomy: when and how?]

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy are the two techniques for pancreatic anastomosis that are widely established for the reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreaticogastrostomy is the most recent and to date less frequently performed method, the history, techniques and indications of which are presented.

METHOD

Review of the literature and current evidence.

RESULTS

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses does not demonstrate significant differences in complication rates or pancreatic function after pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy.

CONCLUSION

Pancreaticogastrostomy is the technically less demanding procedure, offering at least the same level of safety as pancreaticojejunostomy. Minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing procedures provide new areas of application for this anastomotic technique.

Current status of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreatectomy

This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP), and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). Some retrospective studies comparing LPD or LDP and open procedures have demonstrated the safety and feasibility as well as the intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery of these procedures. In contrast, LCP and LTP have not been widely accepted as common laparoscopic procedures owing to their complicated reconstruction and limited indications. Nevertheless, our concise review reveals that LCP and LTP performed by expert laparoscopic surgeons can result in good short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, as surgeons' experience with laparoscopic techniques continues to grow around the world, new innovations and breakthroughs in MIPS will evolve. Well-designed and suitably powered randomized controlled trials of LPD, LDP, LCP, and LTP are now warranted to demonstrate the superiority of these procedures.

Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy in 50 Consecutive Patients with No Mortality: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery has gradually expanded to include pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This study presents data regarding the efficacy of laparoscopic PD in a single center.

METHODS

This was a single-cohort, prospective observational study. From March 2012 to September 2015, 50 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic PD using a five-trocar technique. Reconstruction of the digestive tract was performed with double jejunal loop technique whenever feasible. Patients with radiological signs of portal vein invasion were operated by open approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven women and 23 men with a median age of 63 years (range 23-76) underwent laparoscopic PD. Five patients underwent total pancreatectomy. All, but 1 patient (previous bariatric operation), underwent pylorus-preserving resection. Reconstruction was performed with double jejunal loop in all cases except in 5 cases of total pancreatectomy. Conversion was required in 3 patients (6%) as a result of difficult dissection (two cases) and unsuspected portal vein invasion (1 patient). Median operative time was 420 minutes (range 360-660), and the 90-day mortality was nil. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 13 patients (26%). There was one grade C (reoperated), one grade B (percutaneous drainage), and all remaining were grade A (conservative treatment). Other complications included port site bleeding (n = 1), biliary fistula (n = 2), and delayed gastric emptying (n = 2). Mean hospital stay was 8.4 days (range 5-31).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD is feasible and safe, but is technically demanding and may be reserved to highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons with proper training in high-volume centers. Isolated pancreatic anastomosis may be useful to decrease the severity of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. Therefore, it could be a good option in patients with a high risk for developing postoperative pancreatic, as well as by less-experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies

Pancreatic surgery for malignancy is recognized as challenging for the surgeons and risky for the patients due to consistent perioperative morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the oncological long-term results are largely disappointing, even for those patients who experience an uneventfully hospital stay. Nevertheless, surgery still remains the cornerstone of a multidisciplinary treatment for pancreatic cancer. In order to maximize the benefits of surgery, the advent of both laparoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat pancreatic cancers with these new methodologies. The reduction of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pain, together with a shorter interval between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy, represent the potential advantages over conventional surgery. Lastly, a better cosmetic result, although not crucial in any cancerous patient, could also play a role by improving overall well-being and patient self-perception. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic surgery is, however, difficult in inexperienced hands and requires a dedicated training in both advanced laparoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The recent large diffusion of the da Vinci^® robotic platform seems to facilitate many of the technical maneuvers, such as anastomotic biliary and pancreatic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. The two main pancreatic operations, distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, are approachable by a minimally invasive path, but more limited interventions such as enucleation are also feasible. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be taken into account when considering the increasing costs of these newest technologies because the main concerns regarding these are the maintenance of all oncological standards and the lack of long-term follow-up. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatic cancer (and less aggressive tumors), with particular attention to the oncological results and widespread reproducibility of each technique.

Current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy

Classic pancreatectomy procedures usually require resection of the pancreas and surrounding organs, having disadvantages of major trauma, long hospital stay and high morbidity. In order to preserve organ function as much as possible, many types of organ preserving pancreatectomy have been widely used in the treatment of benign pancreatic tumors and low-grade malignant lesions, including tumor enucleation, pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, middle segmental pancreatectomy, and spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. With the development of minimally invasive techniques in recent years, laparoscopic and robotic techniques have been also safely applied in organ preserving pancreatectomy. This article will review the current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy.

Robot-Assisted Middle Pancreatectomy for Elderly Patients: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, safety, feasibility, and short- and long-term outcomes for elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies (MPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten patients (≥60 years) underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies from 2012 to 2015. The perioperative data, including tumor size, operating time, rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postoperative morbidity, and other parameters, were analyzed. We collected and analyzed the follow-up information.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64.30 years (range, 60-73 years). The average tumor size was 2.61 cm. The 10 cases were all benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The mean operating time was 175.00 min. The mean blood loss was 113.00 ml with no blood transfusion needed. Postoperative fistulas developed in 5 patients; there were 2 Grade A fistulas and 3 grade B fistulas. There were 3 patients who underwent postoperative complications, including 2 Grade 1 or 2 complications and 1 Grade 3 complication. No reoperation and postoperative mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 19.91 days. After a median follow-up of 23 months, new onset of diabetes mellitus developed in 1 patient and none suffered from deterioration of previously diagnosed diabetes or exocrine insufficiency, and no tumor recurrence happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy was safe and feasible for elderly people. It had low risk of exocrine or endocrine dysfunction and benefited patients' long-term outcomes. Incidence of POPF was relatively high but we could prevent it from resulting in bad outcomes by scientific perioperative care and systemic treatment.

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: Our technique and long-term results in 14 patients

INTRODUCTION

Conventional pancreatic resections may be unnecessary for benign tumours or for tumours of low malignant potential located in the neck and body of pancreas. Such extensive resections can place the patient at increased risk of developing postoperative exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. Central pancreatectomy is a plausible surgical option for the management of tumours located in these locations. Laparoscopic approach seems appropriate for such small tumours situated deep in the retroperitoneum.

AIMS

To assess the technical feasibility, safety and long-term results of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy in patients with benign and low malignant potential tumours involving the neck and body of pancreas.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This study was an observational study which reports a single-centre experience with laparoscopic central pancreatectomy over a 9-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

14 patients underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy from October 2004 to September 2013. These included patients with tumours located in the neck and body of pancreas that were radiologically benign-looking tumours of less than 3 cm in size.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

The statistical analysis was done using GraphPad Prism software.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 48.93 years. The mean operative time was 239.7 min. Mean blood loss was 153.2 ml. Mean postoperative ICU stay was 1.2 days and overall mean hospital stay was 8.07 days. There were no mortalities and no major postoperative complications. Margins were negative in all cases and with a median follow-up of 44 months, there was no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is a feasible procedure with acceptable morbidity. In the long term, there were no recurrences and pancreatic function was well preserved.

Binding pancreaticogastrostomy in laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: a novel technique in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Even though more and more cases of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are reported (Machado et al. in Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(6):486-490, 2013; Hong et al. in World J Surg Oncol 10:223, 2012; Gonzalez et al. in JOP 14(3):273-276, 2013, Zhang et al. in J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(11):912-918, 2013; Sucandy et al. in N Am J Med Sci 2(9):438-441, 2010; Sa Cunha et al. in Surgery 142(3):405-409, 2007), the management for pancreatic stumps remains the most technically challenging part which is the same as in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), making it the bottleneck for laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. In open surgery, various pancreatic reconstruction techniques designed for either pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) or pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) have been attempted to reduce the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), including the binding anastomosis, invented by our team, i.e., binding PG (BPG) and binding PJ, which have been proved to be effective to reduce the POPF (Hong et al. 2012; Peng et al. in Ann Surg 245(5):692-698, 2007; Peng et al. in Updates Surg 63(2):69-74, 2011). However, despite of this, few reports are seen addressing such technique for laparoscopic surgery even though laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is more performed. After a previous successful laparoscopic BPG in a case of laparoscopic CP (LCP; Hong et al. 2012) and more than 50 cases of open PD and CP (Peng et al. 2011), we further performed laparoscopic BPG in 10 consecutive cases of LCP with satisfactory outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility and efficacy of LCP with BPG.

METHODS

Between October 2011 and July 2014, LCP with laparoscopic BPG was performed in ten consecutive patients with lesions of benign or low malignancy at the pancreatic neck. Operative and pathological data, complications, hospital stay and details on the surgical techniques were introduced.

RESULTS

The operations were successfully performed in all the ten cases, with no conversions. The tumor size ranged from 2.0-3.0 to 2.5-3.0 cm, average (2.50 ± 0.35) to (2.66 ± 0.35) cm, and the diameter of pancreatic duct was (1.6-2.1) mm, average (1.71 ± 0.17) mm. Operation time was 170-250 (198.50 ± 25.82) min, and blood loss was 20-300 (125 ± 107.31) mL. Three cases had grade A pancreatic fistula (PF), and one case had delayed gastric emptying, which were all managed with conservative treatment. Upper GI bleeding occurred in one case which was cured with second operation, time for the recovery of bowl movement was 3-5 (4.2 ± 0.8) days, the time for semifluid dieting was 6-10 (8.2 ± 1.5) days, and the hospital stay was 8-20 (12.8 ± 4.63) days. The postoperative fast blood sugar was (6.3 ± 1.6) mmol/L with the normal diet, which was not significantly different from the preoperative data (5.3 ± 0.5) mmol/L (P > 0.05). The postoperative pathology was as follows: five cases of cystic serous adenoma, one case of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, two cases of neuroendocrine tumor, and two cases of solid pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas. All the patients were followed up for 7-40 months, no recurrence happened, and no new incidence of diabetes or insufficiency of pancreatic exocrine function occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

LCP with BPG is feasible and safe; the advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness, the efficacy for avoiding PF, and the preservation of the pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function insufficiency, making it an ideal procedure for the benign or low-malignant lesions at the pancreatic neck.

Laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy: how do I do it?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery is now extensively used, laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy (LMP) has rarely been described.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A 45-year-old woman was diagnosed with branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) at the pancreatic neck, which was discovered after numerous attacks of acute pancreatitis. LMP was decided on for treatment.

RESULTS

The patient underwent pure LMP with right to left dissection and one-layer pancreatogastric anastomosis. Surgery lasted 160 minutes, with 20 mL of blood loss. A frozen section showed negative margins on both sides. The postoperative course was uneventful with 15 days in the hospital. Histology confirmed the diagnosis of branch duct IPMN with moderate dysplasia and negative margins. The patient is symptom free 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results and the data in the literature suggest that the laparoscopic approach is indicated for middle pancreatectomy because there are no technical or oncological contraindications and the outcome is similar to that with the open approach.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic resection is a complex procedure that involves exposure of the retroperitoneal gland, dissection around major vascular structures, and management of an intricate organ, all of which results in a procedure associated with a high morbidity. The application of minimally invasive techniques to pancreatic resection have been studied only relatively recently. This analysis of the current concepts in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery focuses on a select look at currently published series or reviews from centers and groups that have the most experience with this procedure. We aim to present a comprehensive review gained from the experiences of those who are on the leading edge of the learning curve, with an emphasis on describing the similarities and differences between the minimally invasive and open pancreatic procedure. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears to be on the verge of widespread acceptance and shows clear benefits over its open counterpart. Minimally invasive proximal (right-sided) pancreatectomy, on the other hand, appears to be limited to select centers that have been able to demonstrate promising results despite its challenges. Additionally, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and enucleation appear feasible as experience is gained in laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic resection.