Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic diseases

Developments in pancreatic cancer surgery

Pancreatic cancer surgery, with one of the worst prognoses in oncology, is a challenge to the surgical community. Centralization of pancreatic surgery has led to the foundation of high-volume centers, thereby greatly facilitating the successful performance of more radical approaches. This review spotlights on recent advances in surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and the risks and benefits of vascular reconstruction to improve resectability. Surgery being the only modality to achieve cure, multivisceral and vascular resections are being incorporated to improve dismal operability rates of < 10%. Great leaps have been made in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, as targeted and specific chemotherapeutic agents are being continually added. The concept of borderline and locally advanced pancreatic tumors and the use of neoadjuvant chemorad has extended the indications of oncological resection in such tumors. Venous resections are being routinely performed so as to facilitate en bloc removal of tumors, while arterial resections, owing to the increased morbidity and mortality, are offered to highly selective cases. New techniques like the triangle operation and periarterial divestment have opened new viable surgical options. Although laparoscopic approach is time consuming, it offers reduced operative blood loss and a shortened hospital stay at specialized centers. Robotic surgery may produce better results in patients needing vascular resection and reconstruction, but the expenses involved and limited availability are major deterrents. Advanced techniques of surgical resection and vessel reconstruction provide a repository for curative-intent surgery in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

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.

The Standardization of Pancreatoduodenectomy: Where Are We?

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) represents an important challenge for surgeons due to the complexity of the operation, requirement for technical skills and experience, and postoperative management involving important and life-threatening complications. Despite efforts to reduce mortality in high-volume centers, the morbidity rate is still high (approximately 40-50%). The PD standardization process of surgical aspects and preoperative and postoperative settings is essential to permit pancreatic surgeons to communicate in the same language, compare experiences and results, and to improve the short- and long-term outcomes. The aim of this article is to assess the state of the art practices for important matters of debate for PD (the role of mini invasive approach, the definition and the role of mesopancreas, the extent of lymphadenectomy, the different methods of reconstructions, the prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity), and to suggest possible future studies.

Does minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have advantages over its open method? A meta-analysis of retrospective studies

Background

While more and more open procedures now routinely performed using laparoscopy, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Therefore, we carried out this meta-analysis to evaluate whether MIPD is safe, feasible and worthwhile.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies published between January 1994 and November 2013 comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Intraoperative outcomes, oncologic safety, postoperative complications, and postoperative recovery were evaluated.

Results

11 retrospective studies representing 869 patients (327 MIPDs, 542 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (MD −361.93 ml, 95% CI −519.22 to −204.63 ml, p<0.001, I² = 94%), wound infection (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.007, I² = 0%), and hospital stay (MD −2.64 d, 95% CI −4.23 to −1.05 d, p = 0.001, I² = 78%). However, it brings longer operative time (MD 105 min, 95% CI 49.73 to 160.26 min, p<0.001, I² = 93%). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in likelihood of overall complications (p = 0.05), pancreatic fistula (PF) (p = 0.86), delayed gastric empting (DGE) (p = 0.96), positive surgical margins (p = 0.07), retrieval of lymph nodes (p = 0.48), reoperation (p = 0.16) and mortality (p = 0.64).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible and worthwhile. But considering the selection bias, complexity of MIPD and lack of long-term oncologic outcomes, we suggest it be performed in a high-volume pancreatic surgery center in selected patients.