Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.

Results

Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, p = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, p = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, p = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.

Conclusion

This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Supplemental 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Detection of Malignant Transformation of IPMN-A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Accurate detection of malignant transformation and risk-stratification of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) has remained a diagnostic challenge. Preliminary findings have indicated a promising role of positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in detecting malignant IPMN. Therefore, the aim of this model-based economic evaluation was to analyze whether supplemental FDG-PET/CT could be cost-effective in patients with IPMN. Decision analysis and Markov modeling were applied to simulate patients' health states across a time frame of 15 years. CT/MRI based imaging was compared to a strategy with supplemental 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Cumulative costs in US-$ and outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were computed based on input parameters extracted from recent literature. The stability of the model was evaluated by deterministic sensitivity analyses. In the base-case scenario, the CT/MRI-strategy resulted in cumulative discounted costs of USD $106,424 and 8.37 QALYs, while the strategy with supplemental FDG-PET/CT resulted in costs of USD $104,842 and a cumulative effectiveness of 8.48 QALYs and hence was cost-saving. A minimum specificity of FDG-PET/CT of 71.5% was required for the model to yield superior net monetary benefits compared to CT/MRI. This model-based economic evaluation indicates that supplemental 18F-FDG-PET/CT could have a favorable economic value in the management of IPMN and could be cost-saving in the chosen setting. Prospective studies with standardized protocols for FDG-PET/CT could help to better determine the value of FDG-PET/CT.

A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is increasingly done by laparoscopy but data from routine practise are scarce. We describe practise in a national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Patient Register of all patients undergoing DP from 2012 to 2016. National resection rates were analysed. Short-term outcomes include length of stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 554 procedures, 327 (59%) were laparoscopic. Median age was 66 years (iqr 55-72) and 52% were women. Resection rates increased during the period for all DP (from 1.76 to 2.39 per 100.000/yr), and significantly for laparoscopic DP (adjusted R-square 0.858; P = 0.015). Elderly patients had more resection (r₂ = 0.11; P = 0.019). Splenectomy (n = 427; 77%) was less likely with laparoscopy (laparoscopy 72% vs open 84%, respectively; OR 0.64, 95% c.i. 0.42-0.97; P = 0.035). Multivisceral resections occurred more often in open DP (5.3% vs 1.2% for laparoscopy, OR 4.51, 1.44-14.2; P = 0.008). Reoperation occurred in 34 (6%), readmission in 109 (20%), and mortality in 8 (1.4%). Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSION

Use of DP increases in the population, particularly in the elderly, with use of laparoscopic access and an association with a reduced hospital stay.

Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The economic implications of relevant clinicopathologic factors on the surgical approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) should be clearly defined and understood to potentially allow the implementation of cost reduction strategies.

METHODS

Administrative and clinical datasets of patients undergoing a DP between 2012 and 2016 were merged and queried. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinicopathologic predictors of cost differentials for minimally invasive DP (MIDP) relative to open DP (ODP). Time trends in cost were also assessed to identify opportunities for cost containment.

RESULTS

Among two hundred and twenty five patients, 128 underwent an ODP (57%) and 97 a MIDP (43%). The DP groups were comparable with regard to relevant perioperative and disease characteristics. Total hospitalization and total OR costs for MIDP were significantly lower (- 12%, P = 0.0048) and higher (+ 16%, P < 0.0001) respectively, compared to ODP. On univariate analysis, age > 60 (- 12%, P = 0.0262), BMI > 25 (- 10%, P = 0.0222), ASA class ≥ 3 (- 11%, P = 0.0045), OpTime > 230 min (- 16%, P = 0.0004), and T stage ≥ 3 (- 8%, P = 0.0452) were associated with decreased total costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Linear regression analysis revealed that BMI > 25 (Estimate - 0.31, SE 0.15, P = 0.0482), ASA class ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.36, SE 0.17, P = 0.0344), and T stage ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.57, SE 0.26, P = 0.0320) were associated with decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Overtime, total hospitalization cost for MIDP increased from - 21 to 1% (P = 0.0197), while OR costs for MIDP decreased from + 41% to - 2% (P = 0.0049), nearly equalizing the cost differences between ODP and MIDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant clinicopathologic factors predicted decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP relative to ODP. In equivalent stages of disease, optimizing the surgical approach to DP based on specific clinicopathologic characteristics may afford significant cost-saving opportunities.

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy is a value-added proposition for patients undergoing care in moderate-volume and high-volume centers

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of the minimally invasive approach to distal pancreatectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes including readmissions to 90 days after distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (11%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and a total of 2,214 (89%) underwent open distal pancreatectomy. On multivariable regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a decreased odds risk of having any severe adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.54-0.97]), prolonged length of stay (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval [0.30-0.79]), and of being in the highest quartile for aggregate costs of care (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval [0.32-0.66]) relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a lower average 90-day aggregate cost of care than those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy when procedures were performed in high-volume (-$16,153, 95% CI: [-$23,342 to -$8,964]) centers.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy have a lower risk of severe adverse outcomes, prolonged overall length of stay, and lower associated costs of care relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. This association is independent of hospital volume.

How to close the pancreatic stump and the role of sealants

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and also the most threatening complication following distal pancreatectomy. For this reason, morbidity and mortality of this operation remain still high. Over the last two decades, many different studies have been performed aiming to reduce the rate and the severity of POPF. However, effective treatments to prevent or avoid clinically relevant pancreatic fistula are still unclear. In this review, we discuss the current evidence on such a relevant topic.

Analysis of 90-day cost for open versus minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with improved peri-operative outcomes compared to the open approach, though cost-effectiveness of MIDP remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic tumors undergoing open (ODP), robotic (RDP), or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) between 2012-2014 were identified through the Truven Health MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index operation and 90-day readmissions were calculated. Multivariable regression was used to predict associations with log 90-day payments.

RESULTS

693 patients underwent ODP, 146 underwent LDP, and 53 RDP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP resulted in shorter median length of stay (6 d. ODP vs. 5 d. RDP vs. 4 d. LDP, p<0.01) and lower median payments ($38,350 ODP vs. $34,870 RDP vs. $32,148 LDP, p<0.01) during the index hospitalization. Total median 90-day payments remained significantly lower for both minimally invasive approaches ($40,549 ODP vs. $35,160 RDP vs. $32,797 LDP, p<0.01). On multivariable analysis, LDP and RDP resulted in 90-day cost savings of 21% and 25% relative to ODP, equating to an amount of $8,500-$10,000.

CONCLUSION

MIDP is associated with >$8,500 in lower cost compared to the open approach. Quality improvement initiatives in DP should ensure that lack of training and technical skill are not barriers to MIDP.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Robotics in HPB surgery

Some major procedures and an assessment of their impact in the field

The Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach to Resection of Pancreatic Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms: An Underused Technique?

Pancreatic mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) are rare tumors typically of the distal pancreas that harbor malignant potential. Although resection is recommended, data are limited on optimal operative approaches to distal pancreatectomy for MCN. MCN resections (2000–2014; eight institutions) were included. Outcomes of minimally invasive and open MCN resections were compared. A total of 289 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for MCN: 136(47%) minimally invasive and 153(53%) open. Minimally invasive procedures were associated with smaller MCN size (3.9 vs 6.8 cm; P = 0.001), lower operative blood loss (192 vs 392 mL; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay(5 vs 7 days; P = 0.001) compared with open. Despite higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, hand-assisted (n = 46) had similar advantages as laparoscopic/robotic (n = 76). When comparing hand-assisted to open, although MCN size was slightly smaller (4.1 vs 6.8 cm; P = 0.001), specimen length, operative time, and nodal yield were identical. Similar to laparoscopic/robotic, hand-assisted had lower operative blood loss (161 vs 392 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 7 days; P = 0.03) compared with open, without increased complications. Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is a useful approach for MCN resection because specimen length, lymph node yield, operative time, and complication profiles are similar to open procedures, but it still offers the advantages of a minimally invasive approach. Hand-assisted laparoscopy should be considered as an alternative to open technique or as a successive step before converting from total laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy for MCN.

Robotic longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy for chronic pancreatitis: Comparison of clinical outcomes and cost to the open approach

BACKGROUND

This study compares clinical and cost outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) and open longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ) for chronic pancreatitis.

METHODS

Clinical and cost data were retrospectively compared between open and RAL LPJ performed at a single center from 2008-2015.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent LPJ: 19 open and 7 RAL. Two robot-assisted cases converted to open were included in the open group for analysis. Patients undergoing RAL LPJ had less intraoperative blood loss, a shorter surgical length of stay, and lower medication costs. Operation supply cost was higher in the RAL group. No difference in hospitalization cost was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Versus the open approach, RAL LPJ performed for chronic pancreatitis shortens hospitalization and reduces medication costs; hospitalization costs are equivalent. A higher operative cost for RAL LPJ is mitigated by a shorter hospitalization. Decreased morbidity and healthcare resource economy support use of the robotic approach for LPJ when appropriate.

Introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a Western tertiary referral centre: A prospective cost analysis during the learning curve

AIM

To evaluate the costs of the introduction of a laparoscopic surgery program for gastric cancer in a Western community training hospital and tertiary referral centre for gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent in 2013 and 2014 were prospectively included. Primary outcomes were costs regarding surgery and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was used in 52 patients [mean age 68 years (± 9, range 50 to 87)] and open gastrectomy was used in 25 patients [mean age 70 years (± 10, range 46 to 85)]. Mean costs (in euro’s) of surgical instrumentation were significantly higher for laparoscopic surgery: 2270 ± 670 vs 1181 ± 680 in the open approach (P < 0.001). Costs of theatre use were higher in the laparoscopic group: mean 3819 ± 865 vs 2545 ± 1268 in the open surgery (P < 0.001). Total costs of hospitalization (i.e., costs of surgery and admission) were not different between laparoscopic and open surgery, 8187 ± 4864 and 7673 ± 8064 respectively (P = 0.729). Mean length of hospital stay was 9 ± 12 d in the laparoscopic group vs 14 ± 14 d in the open group (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer coincided with higher costs for theatre use and surgical instrumentation compared to the open technique. Total costs were not significantly different due to shorter length of stay and less intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and shorter ICU stay in the laparoscopic group.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections: cost and value perspectives

BACKGROUND

The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications.

METHODS

An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR.

RESULTS

Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level.

CONCLUSION

Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing distal pancreatic resection were extracted from the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. After propensity score case matching, groups of LDP and ODP were compared regarding demography, comorbidities, operative details, histopathology, and perioperative outcome.

RESULTS

At the time of data extraction, the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry included over 3000 pancreatic resections from over 50 surgical departments in Germany. Data from 353 patients undergoing ODP (n = 254) or LDP (n = 99) from September 2013 to February 2016 at 29 institutions were included in the analysis. Baseline data showed a strong selection bias in LDP patients, which disappeared after 1:1 propensity score matching. A comparison of the matched groups disclosed a significantly longer operation time, higher rate of spleen preservation, more grade A pancreatic fistula, shorter hospital stay, and increased readmissions for LDP. In the small group of patients operated for pancreatic cancer, a lower lymph node yield with a lower lymph node ratio was apparent in LDP.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP needed more time but potential advantages include increased spleen preservation and shorter hospital stay, as well as a trend for less transfusion, ventilation, and mortality. LDP for pancreatic cancer was performed rarely and will need critical evaluation in the future. Data from a prospective randomized registry trial is needed to confirm these results.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

After technological advances and increased experiences, more complicated surgeries including distal pancreatectomy can be easily performed with acceptable oncologic results, and decreased mortality and morbidity. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have several advantages including less blood loss, less hospital stay, less pain. Several studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and LDP resulted that both techniques have similar results according to pancreas fistulas, oncological results, costs and operation indications. Morbidity is very low in high volume centers, for this reason at least ten cases should be performed for the learning curve. Several authors remarked important technical points in LDP in order to perform safe and acceptable LDP in several studies. Here in this review, we aimed to overview the results of previous studies about LDP and discuss the technical points of LDP.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (MI) pancreatic surgery appears to be gaining popularity, but its implementation throughout Europe and the opinions regarding its use in pancreatic cancer patients are unknown.

METHODS

A 30-question survey was sent between June and December 2014 to pancreatic surgeons of the European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and 5 European national pancreatic societies. Incomplete responses were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 237 pancreatic surgeons responded. After excluding 34 incomplete responses, 203 responses from 27 European countries were included. 164 (81%) surgeons were employed at a university hospital, 184 (91%) performed advanced MI surgery and 148 (73%) performed MI distal pancreatectomy. MI pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by 42 (21%) surgeons, whereas 9 (4.4%) surgeons had performed more than 10 procedures. Robot-assisted MI pancreatic surgery was performed by 28 (14%) surgeons. 63 (31%) surgeons expected MI distal pancreatectomy for cancer to be inferior to open distal pancreatectomy concerning oncological outcomes. 151 (74%) surgeons expected to benefit from training in MI distal pancreatectomy and 149 (73%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

MI distal pancreatectomy is a common procedure, although its use for cancer is still disputed. MI pancreatoduodenectomy is still an uncommon procedure. Specific training and a randomized trial regarding MI pancreatic cancer surgery are welcomed.

The First Decade of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: Costs and Outcomes Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains an uncommon procedure, and the safety and efficacy remain uncertain beyond single institution case series. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes and costs between laparoscopic (LPD) and open PD (OPD) using a large population-based database.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (a sample of approximately 20 % of all hospital discharges) was analyzed to identify patients who underwent PD from 2000 to 2010. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, inflation-adjusted total charges, and complications were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Hospitals were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH) if more than 20 PD (open and laparoscopic) were performed annually, while those performing fewer than 20 PD were classified as low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the 15,574 PD identified, 681 cases were LPD (4.4 %). Compared to OPD, patients who underwent LPD were slightly older (65 vs. 67 years; p = 0.001) and were more commonly treated at HVH (56.6 vs. 66.1 %; p < 0.001). Higher rates of complications were observed in OPD than LPD (46 vs. 39.4 %; p = 0.001), though mortality rates were comparable (5 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.27). Inflation-adjusted median hospital charges were similar between OPD and LPD ($87,577 vs. $81,833, p = 0.199). However, hospital stay was slightly longer in the OPD group compared to LPD group (12 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). Stratifying outcomes by hospital volume, LPD at HVH resulted in shorter hospital stays (9 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001), which translated into significantly lower median hospital charges ($76,572 vs. $106,367, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to fears regarding the potential for compromised outcomes early in the learning curve, LPD morbidity in its first decade is modestly reduced, while hospital costs are comparable to OPD. In high-volume pancreatic hospitals, LPD is associated with a reduction in length of stay and hospital costs.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: safe and reasonable?

As a result of technological advances during the past two decades, surgeons now use minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to pancreatic resection more frequently, yet the role of these approaches for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resections remains uncertain, given the aggressive nature of this malignancy. Although there are no controlled trials comparing MIS technique to open surgical technique, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with increasing frequency. Data from retrospective studies suggest that perioperative complication profiles between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are similar, with perhaps lower blood loss and fewer wound infections in the MIS group. Concerning oncologic outcomes, there appear to be no differences in the rate of achieving negative margins or in the number of lymph nodes (LNs) resected when compared to open surgery. There are limited recurrence and survival data on laparoscopic compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but in the few studies that assess long term outcomes, recurrence rates and survival outcomes appear similar. Recent studies show that though laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy entails a greater operative cost, the associated shorter length of hospital stay leads to decreased overall cost compared to open procedures. Multiple new technologies are emerging to improve resection of pancreatic cancer. Robotic pancreatectomy is feasible, but there are limited data on robotic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and outcomes appear similar to laparoscopic approaches. Additionally fluorescence-guided surgery represents a new technology on the horizon that could improve oncologic outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, though published data thus far are limited to animal models. Overall, MIS distal pancreatectomy appears to be a safe and reasonable approach to treating selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, though additional studies of long-term oncologic outcomes are merited. We review existing data on MIS distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Implementation of enhanced recovery programme for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: feasibility, safety and cost analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.

Surgical management of pancreatic cancer--distal pancreatectomy

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard procedure for tumors located in the body and tail of the pancreas. In the last three decades, significant progress has been made with regard to technical aspects as well as perioperative care so that excellent mortality and morbidity rates can be achieved. Recently, there is growing evidence that distal pancreatectomy may be performed laparoscopically in selected patients, offering the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Unfortunately, the oncologic outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma remain poor, in part due to the late stage of presentation in most patients. We review the history of distal pancreatectomy, discuss current indications for performing this procedure, compare operative techniques in performing distal pancreatectomy, and review both the early complications seen in patients who have undergone a distal pancreatectomy and the long-term metabolic and oncologic outcomes of these patients.

Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

BACKGROUND

The indications for minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatectomy have slowly increased as experience, techniques, and technology have improved and evolved to manage malignant lesions in selected patients without compromising safety and oncologic principles. There are sparse data comparing laparoscopic, robotic, and open distal pancreatectomy (DP).

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing DP at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed from a prospective database. Clinicopathologic and survival data were analyzed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent DP via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

Eight hundred five DP were performed during the study period, comprising 37 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP), 131 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 637 open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). The 3 groups were similar with respect to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, sex ratio, body mass index, pancreatic fistula rate, and 90-day morbidity and mortality. Patients in the ODP group were generally older (p = 0.001), had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and had a trend toward a longer hospital stay (p = 0.05). Of the significant preoperative variables, visceral fat was predictive of conversion on multivariate analysis (p = 0.003). Oncologic outcomes in the adenocarcinoma cases were similar for the 3 groups, with high rates of R0 resection (88% to 100%). The ODP group had a higher lymph node yield than the LDP and RDP groups (15.4, [SD 8.7] vs 10.4 [SD 8.0] vs 12[SD 7.2], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP and LDP were comparable with respect to most perioperative outcomes, with no clear advantage of one approach over the other. Both of these MIS techniques may have advantages over ODP in well-selected patients. All approaches achieved a similarly high rate of R0 resection for patients with adenocarcinoma.