Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (LAPOP): study protocol for a single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Earlier nonrandomized studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss, and recovery. Only one randomized study has been conducted showing reduced time to functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP.

METHODS

LAPOP is a prospective randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group, single-center superiority trial. Sixty patients with lesions in the pancreatic body or tail that are found by a multidisciplinary tumor board to need surgical resection will be randomized to receive LDP or ODP. The primary outcome variable is postoperative hospital stay, and secondary outcomes include functional recovery (defined as no need for intravenous medications or fluids and as the ability of an ambulatory patient to perform activities of daily life), perioperative bleeding, complications, need for pain medication, and quality of life comparison.

DISCUSSION

The LAPOP trial will test the hypothesis that LDP reduces postoperative hospital stay compared with ODP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, 26912858 . Registered on 28 September 2015.

Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of distal pancreas and liver nodule for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with or without splenic preservation is increasingly performed for benign or border-line neoplasms of the body and tail of the pancreas. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors appear as an excellent indication for laparoscopic resection and this procedure is becoming the gold standard for the surgical treatment of such neoplasms. The safety and advantage of laparoscopic resection over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) have been proven. In this video, we present a LDP with splenectomy for a neuroendocrine tumor of distal pancreas, with associated wedge resection of a liver nodule. Technical considerations were also discussed.

Short-term outcomes after distal pancreatectomy: Laparotomy vs. laparoscopy - A single-center series

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was introduced 15 years ago, but it is still not widely used. The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative complications and length of stay between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Materials and methods

A search of our institutional pancreas database was performed. All consecutive distal pancreatectomy patients from 2000 to 2015 were identified. Demographics, peri- and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. Postoperative complications were graded using Clavien classification. Standard statistical analyses were performed.

Results

One hundred and five patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (45 women, 60 men, median age of 63 years). Seventy-nine cases were performed open and 26 by laparoscopy (conversion rate from laparoscopy to laparotomy: 7/26). Characteristics of both groups were similar. The tumor proportion was similar in both groups (56/79 and 23/26, p = 0.114). Overall complication rate was 41/79 (52%) in the open group and 9/26 (36%) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.175). Two patients died during hospital stay in the open group compared to 0 in the laparoscopy group (p = 1). The fistula rates were comparable (17/79 and 5/26, p = 1). Median length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopy group (8 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001), as well as the median intermediate care stay (1 vs. 3 days, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Short-term outcomes after open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy regarding postoperative complications and mortality were similar, but length of stay was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic approach. Hence, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy should be offered to all suitable patients.

•

Laparoscopy has been recently used more frequently for distal pancreatectomy.

•

Postoperative complications and oncologic outcomes were similar in this study.

•

Length of stay was shorter for the patients operated by laparoscopy.

•

Laparoscopy should be offered when technically feasible.