Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

Incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a population-based study

Purpose

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a devastating complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PD (MIPD), including laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, have comparable POPF rates to open PD (OPD). However, we hypothesize that the likelihood of having a more severe POPF, as defined as clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), would be higher in an MIPD relative to OPD.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy dataset (2014-2020) was reviewed for any POPF after OPD. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared MIPD to OPD, and then RPD to LPD.

Results

Among 3,083 patients who developed a POPF, 2,843 (92.2%) underwent OPD and 240 (7.8%) MIPD; of these, 25.0% were LPD (n = 60) and 75.0% RPD (n = 180). Grade B POPF was observed in 45.4% (n = 1,400), and grade C in 6.0% (n = 185). After PSM, MIPD patients had higher rates of CR-POPF (47.3% OPD vs. 54.4% MIPD, p = 0.037), as well as higher reoperation (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.006), delayed gastric emptying (29.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.041), and readmission rates (28.2% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.032). However, CR-POPF rates were comparable between LPD and RPD (56.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.408).

Conclusion

The impact of POPF is more clinically pronounced after MIPD than OPD with a more complex postoperative course. The difference appears to be attributed to the minimally invasive environment itself as no difference was noted between LPD and RPD. A clear biological explanation of this clinical observation remains missing. Further studies are warranted.

Advances in Surgery and (Neo) Adjuvant Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

A multimodality approach, which usually includes chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiotherapy, is optimal for patients with localized pancreatic cancer. The timing and sequence of these interventions depend on anatomic resectability and the biological suitability of the tumor and the patient. Tumors with vascular involvement (ie, borderline resectable/locally advanced) require surgical reassessments after therapy and participation of surgeons familiar with advanced techniques. When indicated, venous reconstruction should be offered as standard of care because it has acceptable morbidity. Morbidity and mortality of pancreas surgery may be mitigated when surgery is performed at high-volume centers.

Are the screening guidelines for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms cost-effective in an Australian setting?

BACKGROUNDS

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are cystic neoplasms of the pancreatic ductal system. These incidental cystic lesions are increasingly found on radiological imaging and screened for malignant transformation. The Fukuoka consensus guidelines recommend screening with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound. Branch duct IPMN (BD-IPMN) have significantly lower malignancy and mortality rates compared to main duct IPMN. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of guideline's recommendations for BD-IPMN screening of cysts between 2 and 3 cm in an Australian context.

METHODS

Markov model decision analysis was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening. The ICER was compared to a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50 000. We performed scenario analysis to examine the effect of cyst size and non-linearity of malignancy rate on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed on our input parameters.

RESULTS

Screening resulted in 586 quality adjusted life years gained and a net present value of $20 379 939, resulting in a base-case ICER of $34 758. After scenario analysis for non-linearity of malignancy rate the ICER increases to $64 555, which is above the WTP threshold. PSA indicates that ICER is most susceptible to the pre-test malignancy rate.

CONCLUSION

This cost analysis demonstrates that screening of 2-3 cm BD-IPMN according to current guidelines is unlikely to be cost-effective in an Australian context. To determine the true ICER, a cost analysis on real-world data is required.

Epidemiology of healthcare-associated infections and outcomes among open and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: A retrospective study from 2013 to 2022

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are one of the common postoperative complications. This study aims to investigate the epidemiology of postoperative HAIs in patients with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study described the trend of HAIs in patients undergoing PD from January 2013 to December 2022 at a tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into OPD and RPD, and the HAIs and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 2632 patients who underwent PD, 230 (8.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-9.9%) were diagnosed with HAIs, with a decreasing trend from 2013 to 2022 (P < 0.001 for trend). The incidence of postoperative HAIs was significantly higher in patients with OPD than RPD (9.6% vs 5.8%; P = 0.003). The incidence of HAIs for patients with OPD showed a decreasing trend (P = 0.001 for trend), and the trend for RPD was not significant (P = 0.554 for trend). Logistic regression showed that RPD was significantly associated with postoperative HAIs after adjusting for covariates (adjusted odds ratio = 0.654; 95% CI 0.443-0.965; P = 0.032), especially in the subgroup of patients without preoperative biliary drainage (adjusted odds ratio = 0.486; 95% CI 0.292-0.809; P = 0.006). Regarding clinical outcomes, RPD has a shorter length of stay and a more expensive charge than OPD (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative HAIs in patients with PD showed a decreasing trend in recent years, especially in OPD. RPD was significantly associated with reduced postoperative HAIs and length of stay, although the charge is more expensive. Attention should be paid to postoperative HAIs in OPD, and it is imperative to continue reducing the costs of RPD.

Robotic enucleation & uncinectomy of complex lesions of the proximal pancreas

BACKGROUND

Malignant tumours within the proximal pancreas traditionally require pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for cure. For smaller lesions with borderline malignant potential the risk/benefit of PD becomes difficult to justify. Robotic approaches to these lesions allow for parenchymal preserving resection with reduced complication profile without oncological compromise.

METHODS

A review of a single surgeons prospectively collated database across two institutions of consecutive robotic enucleations or parenchyma preserving resections of the proximal pancreas was performed between July 2018 and October 2021. Standard demographic data, preoperative variables, intraoperative parameters, post-operative outcomes, morbidity and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (8 female and 5 male) underwent robotic enucleation (EN) (8) and/or uncinectomy (UN) (5) in the proximal pancreas. Mean BMI was 32(kg/m2 ). Three patients (21%) underwent preoperative prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting. One patient required conversion to open. The median operative time in the EN group was 170 min (108-224 min) and the UN group was 160 min (110-204 min). The majority (8) of lesions were pNETs. Three lesions were IPMNs, with 1 solitary fibrous tumour and a serous cystic neoplasm (SCN) respectively. Median tumour size was 23 mm (11-58 mm) in the EN group, and 27 mm (17-38 mm) in the UN group. Ten of 13 patients had an R0 resection. There was no mortality in our series. Four (31%) patients across both groups developed clinically relevant POPF while none developed new endocrine or exocrine insufficiency. Average outpatient follow-up has been 6 months (1-18 months).

CONCLUSION

A robotic approach in proximal parenchymal preserving pancreatectomy is expanding, safe and feasible.

[Treatment of Ampullary Adenocarcinoma]

The ampulla of Vater is a small projection formed by the confluence of the main pancreatic duct and common bile duct in the second part of the duodenum. Primary ampullary adenocarcinoma is a rare malignancy, accounting for only 0.2% of gastrointestinal cancers and approximately 7% of all periampullary cancers. Jaundice from a biliary obstruction is the most common symptom of ampullary adenocarcinoma. In the early stages, radical pancreatoduodenectomy is the standard surgical approach. On the other hand, no randomized controlled trial has provided evidence to guide physicians on the choice of adjuvant/palliative chemotherapy because of the rarity of the disease and the paucity of related research. This paper reports the biology, histology, current therapeutic strategies, and potential future therapies of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Risk stratification of clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains one of the major complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), with discrepant reports of its contributing factors. This study aimed to develop a nomogram to identify potential predictors and predict the probability of DGE after PD.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 422 consecutive patients who underwent PD from January 2019 to December 2021 at our institution. The LASSO algorithm and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify independent risk and protective factors associated with clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying (CR-DGE). A nomogram was established based on the selected variables. Then, the calibration curve, ROC curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve (CIC) were applied to evaluate the predictive performance of our model. Finally, an independent cohort of 45 consecutive patients from January 2022 to March 2022 was enrolled to further validate the nomogram.

RESULTS

Among 422 patients, CR-DGE occurred in 94 patients (22.2%). A previous history of chronic gastropathy, intraoperative plasma transfusion ≥ 400 ml, end-to-side gastrointestinal anastomosis, intra-abdominal infection, incisional infection, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) were identified as risk predictors. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) was demonstrated to be a protective predictor of CR-DGE. The areas under the curve (AUCs) were 0.768 (95% CI, 0.706-0.830) in the development cohort, 0.766 (95% CI, 0.671-0.861) in the validation cohort, and 0.787 (95% CI, 0.633-0.940) in the independent cohort. Then, we built a simplified scale based on our nomogram for risk stratification.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified seven predictors and constructed a validated nomogram that effectively predicted CR-DGE for patients who underwent PD.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: trends in technique and training challenges

BACKGROUND

More complex cases are being performed robotically. This study aims to characterize trends in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) over time and assess opportunities for advanced trainees.

METHODS

Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2014 to 2019, PD cases were characterized by operative approach (open-OPN, laparoscopic-LAP, robotic-ROB). Proficiency and postoperative outcomes were described by approach over time.

RESULTS

24,268 PDs were identified, with the ROB approach increasing from 2.8% to 7.5%. Unplanned conversion increased over time for LAP (27.7-39.0%, p = 0.003) but was unchanged for ROB cases (14.8-14.7%, p = 0.257). Morbidity increased for OPN PD (35.5-36.8%, p = 0.041) and decreased for ROB PD (38.7-30.3%, p = 0.010). Mean LOS was lower in ROB than LAP/OPN (9.5 vs. 10.9 vs. 10.9 days, p < 0.00001). Approximately, 100 AHPBA, SSO, and ASTS fellows are being trained each year in North America; however, only about 5 RPDs are available per trainee per year which is far below that recommended to achieve proficiency.

CONCLUSION

Over a 6-year period, a significant increase was observed in the use of RPD without a concomitant increase in conversion rates. RPD was associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. Despite this shift, the number of cases being performed is not adequate for all fellows to achieve proficiency before graduation.

Minimally invasive approaches increase postoperative complications in obese patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial development period: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Obesity increases surgical risks in various abdominal surgeries and its impact on open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of OPD and MIPD in obese and non-obese patients by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis during the implementation of MIPD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all pancreaticoduodenectomies from December 2014 to May 2021. Obesity was defined as body mass index > 25 kg/m² according to World Health Organization International Obesity Task Force. PSM was used to minimize the selection bias of MIPD.

RESULTS

Among 462 pancreaticoduodenectomies (339 OPDs, 123 MIPDs), there were 313 patients in the non-obese group (MIPD: 78, OPD: 235) and 149 patients in the obese group (MIPD: 45, OPD: 104). After PSM, there were 70 MIPD/106 OPD patients in the non-obese group and 38 MIPD/54 OPD patients in the obese group. The obese MIPD patients had more fluid collection (36.8% vs 9.8%, p = 0.002), a higher Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade (p = 0.007), more major complications (42.1% vs 14.8%, p = 0.004), and longer operative times (306 min vs 264 min, p < 0.001) than the obese OPD patients. The non-obese MIPD patients had lower CD grades (p = 0.02), longer operative times (294 vs 264 min, p < 0.001), and less blood loss (100 mL vs 200 mL) than the non-obese OPD patients. MIPD was a strong predictor of major complication (CD ≥ 3) in obese patients (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI: 1.40-6.95, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches deteriorate the CD grade, fluid collection, and major complications in obese patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial development period. Non-obese patients may benefit from MIPD over OPD in terms of less blood loss and lower CD grades. The impact of BMI on MIPD should be considered when assessing the surgical risks.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis

Background

There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC.

Methods

The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan−Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS.

Results

The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P&lt;0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P&gt;0.05).

Conclusions

For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival.

Sublingual Sufentanil versus Standard-of-Care (Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Epidural Ropivacaine/Sufentanil or Intravenous Morphine) for Postoperative Pain Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Randomized Trial

Background

The optimal treatment strategy for postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether sublingual sufentanil tablet (SST) is a non-inferior analgesic compared to our standard-of-care (patient-controlled epidural analgesia [PCEA] or PCA morphine) in the treatment of pain following pancreatoduodenectomy.

Methods

This was a pragmatic, strategy, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel group, randomized (1:1) trial. The primary outcome was an overall mean pain score (Numerical Rating Scale: 0–10) on postoperative days 1 to 3 combined. The non-inferiority margin was −1.5 since this difference was considered clinically relevant.

Results

Between October 2018 and July 2021, 190 patients were assessed for eligibility and 36 patients were included in the final analysis: 17 patients were randomized to SST and 19 patients to standard-of-care. Early treatment failure in the SST group occurred in 2 patients (12%) due to inability to operate the SST system and in 2 patients (12%) due to severe nausea despite antiemetics. Early treatment failure in the standard-of-care group occurred in 2 patients (11%) due to preoperative PCEA placement failure and in 1 patient (5%) due to hemodynamic instability caused by PCEA. The mean difference in pain score on postoperative day 1 to 3 was −0.10 (95% CI −0.72–0.52), and therefore the non-inferiority of SST compared to standard-of-care was demonstrated. The mean pain score, number of patients reporting unacceptable pain (pain score >4), Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score, and patient satisfaction per postoperative day, perioperative hemodynamics and postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusion

This first randomized study investigating the use of SST in 36 patients following pancreatoduodenectomy showed that SST is non-inferior compared to our standard-of-care in the treatment of pain on postoperative days 1 to 3. Future research is needed to confirm that these findings are applicable to other settings.

Das Ampullenkarzinom – prognostische und therapeutische Unterschiede zum duktalen Adenokarzinom des Pankreas

Das Ampullenkarzinom stellt eine seltene, jedoch in seiner Inzidenz steigende Entität gastrointestinaler Tumoren dar. Aufgrund der anatomischen Lokalisation führt es vergleichsweise früh im Erkrankungsprozess zu einer biliären Gangobstruktion, wodurch eine schnellere Diagnosestellung erleichtert und eine bessere Prognose bedingt werden. Adenome der Ampulla hepatopancreatica und der Papilla duodeni major stellen Vorläuferläsionen des Ampullenkarzinoms dar und besitzen ein 30–40%iges Risiko zur malignen Transformation. Diese Entartungstendenz begründet die Notwendigkeit zur vollständigen/kompletten Abtragung im Rahmen der endoskopischen Therapie. Der Erfolg der endoskopischen Papillektomie wird durch eine Ausdehnung des Befundes in den Pankreashauptgang oder Ductus choledochus erschwert. Endoskopisch nicht sanierbare Adenome und Ampullenkarzinome stellen Indikationen für chirurgische Therapieverfahren dar. Grundsätzlich sollte für benigne Befunde die transduodenale Papillenresektion bervorzugt werden, für maligne Befunde stellt die Pankreaskopfresektion mit systematischer Lymphadenektomie und Level-II-Dissektion des Mesopankreas die onkologisch korrekte Operation dar. Prognostische Faktoren beim Ampullenkarzinom sind: der pankreatobiliäre Subtyp, eine Lymphknoteninfiltration und eine Perineuralscheideninvasion. Die Differenzierung in histopathologische Subtypen gewinnt zunehmend in der Indikationsstellung zur Systemtherapie an Bedeutung. Der Einsatz der neoadjuvanten und adjuvanten Therapie für das Ampullenkarzinom konnte bisher nicht klar definiert werden. Jedoch scheinen Patienten mit dem pankreatobiliären Subtyp oder anderen prognoselimitierenden Faktoren von einer adjuvanten Therapie zu profitieren. Zukünftige Studien werden zur zielgerichteten Therapiefestlegung benötigt.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy has increased in recent years, but the risk of postoperative VTE is undefined. We aimed to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy using an administrative dataset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted pancreatectomy database (2016-2018) were identified. VTE was compared between patients who underwent open or minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy directly and after propensity score matching 1:1 for demographics, comorbidities, and peri-/intra-operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 12,227 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy during the study period (open: n = 11,217; minimally invasive: n = 1010). Before matching, the VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (5.2% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.033), and minimally invasive resection was independently associated with VTE (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.09-2.06). After matching, there were 916 patients per group without differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy had longer median operative times (422 vs. 348 min). The VTE rate remained higher following minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy after matching (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.018), mainly driven by a higher DVT rate (3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher postoperative VTE rate compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Clinical application of pancreatic-duct-jejunum end-to-side continuous suture anastomosis in total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

To present a new pancreaticojejunostomy technique for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and to evaluate its safety and reliability.

METHODS

The data of 120 patients who underwent LPD at a single centre from October 2017 to October 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Of these patients, 71 received continuous suture pancreaticojejunostomy, and 49 received "8-character" suture pancreaticojejunostomy for LPD. We compared and analysed the operation time, anastomosis time, and incidence of postoperative complications between the patients in the two groups.

RESULTS

All operations were successfully performed, with no transfer to open surgery. The operation time and anastomosis time in the continuous suture group were lower than those in the "8-character" suture group (305.8 ± 60.7 min vs. 354.3 ± 69.1 min; 28.6 ± 6.3 min vs. 39.4 ± 11.9 min P < 0.001), and the postoperative hospital stay was also shorter (12.9 ± 3.8 days vs. 15.4 ± 5.8 days P < 0.05) in the continuous suture group. There was no significant difference in the pancreatic duct diameter or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. There was also no significant difference in the incidence of a pancreatic fistula between the continuous suture group and the "8-character" suture group. The data of patients in the continuous suture group with pancreatic duct diameters < 3 mm and ≥ 3 mm were statistically analysed. There was no significant difference in the operation time, pancreaticojejunostomy time, postoperative hospital stay, or incidence of pancreatic fistula in the different pancreatic duct diameter groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous suture of pancreaticojejunostomy in LPD is simple, safe, reliable, and rapid. This technique not only saves the anastomosis time but also suitable for pancreatic ducts < 3 mm.

Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnamese patients with periampullary of Vater malignancies: A single-institution prospective study

Introduction

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically complex technique, that is being used to treat periampullary malignancy. We provide our experience with laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) with statistics on the outcomes of periampullary cancer patients.

Material and method

Thirty patients underwent surgery between June 1, 2016 and May 30, 2020, with 21 undergoing classical PD and 9 undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Prospectively gathered data on surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results are given.

Results

The median operative time was 277.5 min (range, 258.7–330 min), and the median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 319.5 mL (range, 241.2–425 mL). The rate of conversion to OPD, surgical reintervention, and mortality was 20%, 13.3%, and 10% respectively. Cumulative surgery-related morbidity was 33.4%, including bleeding (n = 4), severe POPF (n = 4), biliary fistula (n = 1), DGE (n = 2), and intestinal obstruction (n = 1). Pathologic diagnoses were AoV cancer (n = 23), distal CBD cancer (n = 4), PDAC (n = 2), and AoV NET (n = 1). The mean survival time of the LAPD group was 29.9 months. The long-term survival time of the N0 group was 36.8 months, which was significantly longer than that of the N1 group. The long-term survival times of stages I–B, II-A, and II-B were 36.9, 26.5, and 15.7 months, respectively (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

LAPD has a high rate of conversion to OPD, morbidity, and mortality. However, LPD is feasible technique for highly selected patients. Lymph node metastasis and stage of disease are the risk factors for long-term survival.

•

Most of tumours that develop in the periampullary of the Vater region are malignant.

•

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains the most challenging procedure in laparoscopic surgery with the rate of conversion to OPD, morbility, and mortality was 0–40%, 3.8%–50%, and 1.6%–8%, respectively.

•

In the first 30 cases, LAPD has a high rate of complications, conversion to OPD, and mortality. However, LAPD is feasible method and can provide acceptable oncological results with careful patient selection.

•

Experience, learning curve, and high-volume centre might have influenced the results.

Adverse Impact of Intraoperative Conversion on the Postoperative Course Following Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Ampullary Carcinoma: An Overview of a Rare Entity and Discussion of Current and Future Therapeutic Challenges

Ampullary carcinomas (ACs) represent a rare entity, accounting for approximately 0.2% of all gastrointestinal solid tumors and 20% of all periampullary cancers (PACs). Unfortunately, few data are available regarding the optimal therapeutic strategy for ACs due to their rarity, and physicians frequently encounter significant difficulties in the management of these malignancies. In this review, we will provide an overview of current evidence on AC, especially focusing on biological features, histological characteristics, and available data guiding present and future therapeutic strategies for these rare, and still barely known, tumors.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Nomogram and a predictive model for postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodectomy

To develop a predictive model and a nomogram for predicting postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). A total of 409 LPD patients that underwent LPD by the same surgical team between January 2014 and December 2020 were included as the training cohort. The preoperative data of patients were statistically compared and analyzed for exploring factors correlated with postoperative hemorrhage. The predictive model was developed by multivariate logistic regression and stepwise (stepAIC) selection. A nomogram based on the predictive model was developed. The discriminatory ability of the predictive model was validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and leave-one-out method. The statistical analysis was performed using R 3.5.1 (www.r-project.org). The predictive model including the risk-associated factors of postoperative hemorrhage was as follows: 2.695843 − 0.63056 × (Jaundice = 1) − 1.08368 × (DM = 1) − 2.10445 × (Hepatitis = 1) + 1.152354 × (Pancreatic tumor = 1) + 1.071354 × (Bile duct tumor = 1) − 0.01185 × CA125 − 0.04929 × TT − 0.08826 × APTT + 26.03383 × INR − 1.9442 × PT + 1.979563 × WBC − 2.26868 × NEU − 2.0789 × LYM − 0.02038 × CREA + 0.00459 × AST. A practical nomogram based on the model was obtained. The internal validation of ROC curve was statistically significant (AUC = 0.7758). The validation by leave-one-out method showed that the accuracy of the model and the F measure was 0.887 and 0.939, respectively. The predictive model and nomogram based on the preoperative data of patients undergoing LPD can be useful for predicting the risk degree of postoperative hemorrhage.

Effectiveness and stability of robot-assisted anastomosis in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

Purpose

Reconstruction using robotic assistance in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was expected to be an effective means to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, few comparative reports exist on the outcomes of totally laparoscopic PD (TLPD) and robot-assisted laparoscopic PD (RLPD). This retrospective study aimed to analyze the surgical results of TLPD and RLPD in a high-volume pancreatic center.

Methods

We analyzed the surgical results of consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive PD for malignant or benign periampullary lesions between January 2016 and May 2020. Forty-three TLPD patients and 49 RLPD patients were enrolled.

Results

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the 2 groups except for tumor size, which was significantly larger in the RLPD group than in the TLPD group (mean, 3.1 cm vs. 2.5 cm; P = 0.035). The RLPD group had shorter whole operative times (mean, 400.4 minutes vs. 352.2 minutes; P = 0.003) and shorter anastomosis times than the TLPD group (mean, 94.5 minutes vs. 54.9 minutes; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the rate of pancreatic fistulas, morbidity, and mortality. However, a significantly lower wound infection rate was found in the RLPD group relative to the TLPD group (0% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

RLPD showed the advantage of reducing the operation time compared to TLPD as well as technical feasibility and safety.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Ampullary carcinoma of the duodenum: current clinical issues and genomic overview

Ampullary carcinomas of the duodenum are uncommon. Moreover, the diversity in the clinical outcomes of these patients makes it difficult to interpret previous studies and clinical trial results. The difficulty in proper staging of ampullary carcinomas, especially with regard to the T category of the tumor in the TNM system, reflects the anatomic complexity and non-uniform histopathologic subtypes. One major reason for this difficulty in interpretation is that the tumors may arise from any of the three epithelia (duodenal, biliary, or pancreatic) that converge at this location. Generally, ampullary carcinomas are classified into intestinal and pancreaticobiliary types based on morphology and immunohistochemical features. While many studies have described their specific characteristics and clinical impact, the prognostic value of these subtypes is controversial. In recent years, whole-exome sequencing analyses have advanced our understanding of the genomic overview of ampullary carcinoma. Gene mutations serve as prognostic and predictive biomarkers for this disease. Therefore, basic knowledge of the genomic profile of ampullary carcinomas is required for surgeons to understand how best to apply precision medicine as well as surgery and adjuvant therapies. This review provides an overview of the current basic and clinical issues of ampullary carcinoma.

Practice Patterns and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in China: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of 1029 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes of patients who have undergone laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in China.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LPD is being increasingly used worldwide, but an extensive, detailed, systematic, multicenter analysis of the procedure has not been performed.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1029 consecutive patients who had undergone LPD between January 2010 and August 2016 in China. Univariate and multivariate analyses of patient demographics, changes in outcome over time, technical learning curves, and the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and patient outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 1029 patients, 61 (5.93%) required conversion to laparotomy. The median operation time (OT) was 441.34 minutes, and the major complications occurred in 511 patients (49.66%). There were 21 deaths (2.43%) within 30 days, and a total of 61 (5.93%) within 90 days. Discounting the effects of the early learning phase, critical parameters improved significantly with surgeons' experience with the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the pancreatic anastomosis technique, preoperative biliary drainage method, and total bilirubin were linked to several outcome measures, including OT, estimated intraoperative blood loss, and mortality. Multicenter analyses of the learning curve revealed 3 phases, with proficiency thresholds at 40 and 104 cases. Higher hospital, department, and surgeon volume, as well as surgeon experience with minimally invasive surgery, were associated with a lower risk of surgical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is technically safe and feasible, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, long learning curves, low-volume hospitals, and surgical inexperience are associated with higher rates of complications and mortality.

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.

Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I₂ test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only.

RESULTS

The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I₂ = 12, χ² = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.50, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival after MIPD is non-inferior to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.

Predictive factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) continues to be a major contributor to morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but it remains unclear what risk factors can precisely predict the development of CR-POPF after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). We thus aimed to identify the risk factors for predicting CR-POPF after LPD.

Methods

A total of 388 consecutive patients who underwent LPD at our institution between July 2014 and December 2018 were identified. All data, including pre-, intra-, and postoperative risk factors associated with CR-POPF defined by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula, were collected retrospectively. To evaluate the predictive performance of the risk factor models, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were determined.

Results

CR-POPF was observed in 31 patients (8.0%) with significant association observed with body mass index (BMI), visceral fat area (VFA), subcutaneous fat area (SFA), total fat area (TFA), intra-abdominal fat thickness, main pancreatic duct width, soft pancreatic texture, operative time, underlying pathology, and albumin (Alb) on postoperative days (POD) 1­–3. Multivariate analyses revealed that VFA >82 cm² [odds ratio (OR) =11.088; P=0.029], main pancreatic duct width <3 mm (OR =7.701; P=0.001), soft pancreatic texture (OR =12.543; P=0.022), and operative time >320 min (OR =6.061; P<0.001) were independent risk factors for CR-POPF after LPD. Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis revealed the pancreatic texture was the strongest single predictor (AUC =0.854) of CR-POPF, and pancreatic texture + pancreatic duct width was the best two-predictor model (AUC =0.904). Meanwhile, our findings indicated an association between the TFA >221 cm² (OR =8.637; P=0.001) and VFA >82 cm² (OR =7.009; P<0.001) with soft pancreatic texture.

Conclusions

Soft pancreatic texture, VFA >82 cm², main pancreatic duct width <3 mm, and operative time >320 min were independent predictive risk factors of CR-POPF for LPD.

Intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice as a simple predictor of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

A soft remnant texture of the pancreas is commonly accepted as a risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, its assessment is subjective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of intraoperative amylase level of the pancreatic juice as a risk factor of POPF after PD.

METHOD

This study included 75 patients who underwent PD between November 2014 and April 2020 at Jikei University Hospital. We investigated the relationship between pancreatic texture, intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice, results of the pathological evaluations, and the incidence of POPF.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients (31%) developed POPF. The significant predictors of POPF were non-ductal adenocarcinoma (p < 0.01), soft pancreatic remnant (p < 0.01), high intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.01), high intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice (p < 0.01), and low pancreatic fibrosis (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that the significant independent predictors of POPF were high intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.01) and high intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice (p = 0.02). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the cut-off value for the intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice was 2.17 × 10⁵ IU/L (area under the curve = 0.726, sensitivity = 95.7%, and specificity = 50.0%) CONCLUSIONS: The intraoperative amylase level of pancreatic juice is a reliable objective predictor for POPF after PD.

Magnetic Compression Anastomosis in Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a minimally invasive technique widely developed in the last few decades. Although magnetic compression anastomosis (magnamosis) is used during cholangiojejunostomy, its applicability in LPD has not yet been reported. Herein, we evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of magnamosis in LPD.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, seven patients who underwent laparoscopic magnetic compression choledochojejunostomy (LMC-CJ) or laparoscopic magnetic compression pancreatojejunostomy (LMC-PJ) in LPD were enrolled. After LPD, a parent magnet with or without a drainage tube was placed in the proximal bile duct and pancreatic duct of each patient. Daughter magnets were introduced to couple with the parent magnets at the desired sites. A close postoperative surveillance of magnet movements was performed. Various relevant data were collected, and all patients were followed up until February 2020.

RESULTS

LPD was successfully completed in all seven patients, of which seven underwent LMC-CJ and two received LMC-PJ. The median time needed for completion of LMC-CJ was 11 min (range, 8-16). The cost time for the two cases of LMC-PJ was 12 and 15 min, respectively. After a median time of 50 d (range, 40-170) postoperation, all magnets were expelled. No leakages of LMC-CJ or LMC-PJ were observed after operation. After a median follow-up period of 11 mo (range, 4-18), there was no incidence of anastomotic stricture.

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.

RESULTS

After screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.

Basic knowledge of and a small trick for atraumatic needle driving in laparoscopic suturing

Highlight Although recent advances in robotic surgery have enabled more precise movements of the needle driver, a sophisticated laparoscopic suturing technique is still desired. Honda and colleagues describe the basic knowledge of and a small but useful trick for atraumatic needle driving in laparoscopic suturing, based on mechanistic considerations.

The effectiveness, risks and improvement of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Propensity score-matched analyses comparing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) that consider the effect of the learning curve for LPD are lacking. We use Propensity score-matched to compare the safety and efficacy of LPD during the learning curve to OPD.

Methods

The medical records of 296 consecutive patients who had undergone LPD or OPD between September 2016 and August 2019 at Fujian Provincial Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with LPD were matched 1:1 to those treated with OPD. Calculation of propensity scores considered age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, pathology, incidence of obstructive jaundice, incidence of biliary drainage, pancreatic texture, pancreatic duct diameter, previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, and case distribution of the surgical team.

Results

After propensity score matching, 196 patients were divided into two groups: 98 patients in the LPD group and 98 patients in the OPD group. LPD performed during the learning curve was associated with a longer median operative time (OT) (432 vs. 328 min, P<0.001), a higher incidence of major surgery-associated complications (32.7% vs. 14.3%, P=0.002), a higher incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (27.6% vs. 13.3%, P=0.013), and prolonged LOS (21.06 d vs. 16.94 d, P=0.033), but lower median intraoperative blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P<0.001) compared to OPD. Mean OT and LOS were significantly shorter in the late phase of the learning curve for LPD (P<0.001), and were similar to that for OPD. Age >60 years and a non-dilated MPD were significant predictors of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, major surgery-associated complications, prolonged LOS and postoperative mortality at 90 days (all P<0.05).

Conclusions

OT, incidence of major surgery-associated complications, and LOS were significantly increased in patients that underwent LPD, but were significantly improved during the learning curve. Elderly patients and patients with a non-dialated MPD should not be treated with LPD performed by inexperienced surgeons.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

BACKGROUND

LPD is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science for RCTs comparing minimally invasive to OPD for adults with benign or malignant disease requiring elective pancreaticoduodenectomy. Main outcomes were 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph nodes harvested), and operative times. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool and the GRADE approach (Prospero registration ID: CRD42019120363).

RESULTS

Three RCTs with a total of 224 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed there were no significant differences regarding 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, LOS, POPF, DGE, PPH, bile leak, reoperation, readmission, or oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. Operative times were significantly longer for LPD {MD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 95.44 minutes (24.06-166.81 minutes)}, whereas blood loss was lower for LPD [MD (CI) -150.99 mL (-168.54 to -133.44 mL)]. Certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

At current level of evidence, LPD shows no advantage over OPD. Limitations include high risk of bias and moderate to very low certainty of evidence. Further studies should focus on patient safety during LPD learning curves and the potential role of robotic surgery.

Advanced laparoscopic HPB surgery: Experience in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

The worldwide trend in surgery has moved from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Likewise, the application of minimally invasive surgery in the hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) field is also rapidly expanding. The field of HBP surgery can be divided into liver, pancreas and biliary fields. Minimally invasive liver surgery is recently developed. However, laparoscopic liver resection in difficult areas is challenging. However, with the accumulation of experiences, laparoscopic liver resection for difficult areas is performed more than before. With more propagation, more and more liver resection will be performed by laparoscopic approach. In minimally surgery for the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy has become a well-recommended procedure in benign and borderline malignancy. There have been several systemic reviews that show advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The reports on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are slowly increasing in spite of technical difficulty, with several systemic reviews showing advantages of the procedure. However, more PD will be performed as robotic-assisted procedures in the future. The laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract malignancy is still in early stages. The laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer has been contraindicated, although there have been encouraging reports from expert centers. The laparoscopic surgery for Klatskin tumor is still an experimental procedure. Robotic-assisted procedures for the surgery of cholangiocarcinoma will be the future. Robotic-assisted surgery for the HBP field is still not well-developed. However, with the necessity of more precise manipulation like intracorporeal suturing, robotic-assisted surgery will be used more often in the field of HBP surgery.

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Hybrid and Totally Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complicated procedure accompanied with high morbidity. Hybrid LPD is usually used as an alternative/transitional approach. This study aimed to prove whether the hybrid procedure is a safe procedure during a surgeon's learning curve of LPD. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 48 hybrid LPD patients and 62 TLPD patients selected from January 2016 to December 2018; their demographics, surgical outcomes, and oncological data were retrospectively collected. Patient follow-up for the study continued until February 2020. RESULTS Patient demographics and baseline parameters were well balanced between the 2 groups. Intraoperative conditions, overall operation time was shorter for TLPD compared to hybrid LPD (407.79 minutes versus 453.29 minutes, respectively; P=0.035) and blood loss was less in TLPD patients compared to hybrid LPD patients (100.00 mL versus 300.00 mL, respectively; P<0.001). There was no difference in transfusion rates between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 16.7% versus TLPD 4.8%; P=0.084). Postoperative outcomes and intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in the hybrid LPD patient group (hybrid LPD 1-day versus TLPD 0-day, P=0.002) and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the 2 groups (P=0.503). Reoperation rates, in-hospital, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups (P=0.276, 1.000, 1.000, 0.884, respectively). Surgical site infection, bile leak, Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥3, delayed gastric emptying, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulae, and grade B/C post pancreatectomy hemorrhage were not different between the 2 groups (P=0.526, 0.463, 0.220, 0.089, 0.165, 0.757, respectively). The tumor size, margin status, lymph nodes harvested, and metastasis were similar in the 2 groups (P=0.767, 0.438, 0.414, 0.424, respectively). In addition, the median overall survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 29.0 months versus TLPD 30.0 months, P=0.996) as were the progression-free survival rates (hybrid LPD 11.0 months versus TLPD 12.0 months, P=0.373) CONCLUSIONS Hybrid LPD was comparable to TLPD. Hybrid LPD could be performed safely when some surgeons first started LPD (during the operative learning curve), while for skilled surgeons, TLPD could be applied initially.

Clinical evaluation of modified invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains the major curative operation for malignant neoplasm of pancreas or cancerous tumors near the pancreas. Despite advancements in recent years, the postoperative recurrence rate of these neoplasms and tumors remains high. Moreover, overall morbidity remains high due to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

To compare the clinical outcomes of modified invaginated anastomosis and mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis, this retrospective study included 343 patients who underwent PD from January 2008 to January 2019 at Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University. The patients' general conditions and disease status were preoperatively evaluated. The surgical procedure was recorded, and operative management was appropriately performed.

RESULTS

Compared with mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis, modified invaginated anastomosis resulted in a higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (P < 0.001) and lower hospitalization expenses (P = 0.049). However, no significant differences were found in operation time (P = 0.790), intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.428), postoperative recovery exhaust time (P = 0.442), time to normal flow of food (P = 0.163), and hospitalization time (P = 0.567). Operation time was a risk factor for POPF (odds ratio 1.010; 95% confidence interval 1.003-1.016; P = 0.003). The incidence of pancreatic fistula (grades B and C) was lower in the patients who underwent modified invaginated anastomosis (14.1%) than in those who underwent mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis (15.3%). The operation time was greater in the POPF group than in the non POPF group among the patients who received modified invaginated anastomosis (P = 0.003) and mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Modified invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy for PD resulted in a decreased incidence of POPF; it may serve as a new approach for PD while managing patients who have undergone PD.

Totally Laparoscopic Whipple's Operation: Initial Report from the Caribbean

Oncologic surgery in the Caribbean has evolved over the past decade, with increasing reports of advanced minimally invasive operations being performed. However, the minimally invasive approach has not been used for peri-ampullary lesions. This is because a laparoscopic Whipple's operation is a technically demanding and time-consuming operation. We report the first case of a totally laparoscopic Whipple's operation to be performed in the Caribbean.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.

Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (TJDBPS01): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex abdominal operations to perform, and it is usually conducted for tumours of the periampullary region and chronic pancreatitis. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively being developed for pancreatic surgery, first with the advent of hybrid-laparoscopy and recently with total laparoscopic surgery. Issues including the safety and efficacy of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently being debated. Studies comparing these two surgical techniques are emerging, and large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking but are clearly required.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TJDBPS01 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial in 14 centres with pancreatic surgery experts who have performed ≥104 TLPDs and OPDs. A total of 656 patients who will undergo PD are randomly allocated to the TLPD group or OPD group in a 1:1 ratio. The trial hypothesis is that TLPD has superior or equivalent safety and advantages in postoperative recovery compared with OPD. The primary outcome is the postoperative length of stay.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Instituitional Review Board Approval of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology has approved this trial and will be routinely monitoring the trial at frequent intervals, as will an independent third-party organisation. Any results from this trial (publications, conference presentations) will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03138213.

Clinical application of a modified pancreatojejunostomy technique for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to present a modified pancreatojejunostomy technique for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and to evaluate its safety and reliability.

METHODS

Clinical data from 67 patients who underwent LPD at a single center, from September 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively collected and analysed. Of these patients, 31 cases were subjected to modified pancreatojejunostomy (modified group), and 36 cases received duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy (control group) for LPD. We compared and analysed the operative outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients in the two groups.

RESULTS

All LPDs were successfully completed. The mean operation time for pancreatojejunostomy in the modified group was obviously lower than that of the control group (30.9 ± 6.6 min vs 45.3 ± 6.1 min, P < 0.01), and the total operative time was also shorter (321.8 ± 63.6 min vs 362.2 ± 59.6 min, P < 0.05) in the modified group. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was similar (29.0% vs 30.6% P = 0.724). Clinically relevant grade B/C POPF occurred in 2 patients (6.5%) in the modified group and 3 patients (8.3%) in the control group (P = 0.947); All cases were cured using conservative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified pancreatojejunostomy technique is safe, effective and easy to manipulate and learn following LPD.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) performed through the laparoscopic route or by open surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic PD is being progressively performed in selected patients.

METHODS

An open-label single-center RCT was conducted between February 2013 and September 2017. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were operative time, transfusion requirements, specific pancreatic complications (pancreatic or biliary fistula, pancreatic hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, comprehensive complication index (CCI) score, poor quality outcome (PQO), and the quality of pathologic resection. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat basis.

RESULTS

Of 86 patients assessed for PD, 66 were randomized (34 laparoscopic approach, 32 open surgery). Conversion to an open procedure was needed in 8 (23.5%) patients. Laparoscopic versus open PD was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (median 13.5 vs. 17 d; P = 0.024) and longer median operative time (486 vs. 365 min; P = 0.0001). The laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly better outcomes regarding Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (5 vs. 11 patients; P = 0.04), CCI score (20.6 vs. 29.6; P = 0.038), and PQO (10 vs. 14 patients; P = 0.041). No significant differences in transfusion requirements, pancreas-specific complications, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, and resection margins between the two approaches were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD versus open surgery is associated with a shorter LOS and a more favorable postoperative course while maintaining oncological standards of a curative-intent surgical resection.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN93168938.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients by short-term surgical effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of 55 non-elderly patients (< 70 years), 27 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) underwent LPD, and 19 elderly patients underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in biliopancreatic surgery department of Huadong Hospital, affiliated to Fudan University, from Jan 2015 to Jan 2018. Patients were divided into 3 groups: LPD aged < 70 years, LPD aged ≥ 70 years, and OPD aged ≥ 70 years, according to their age at admission and surgical approach in order to compare baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 101 patients were included in this study; 59 cases were male; 42 cases were female; mean age was 66 years old. Elderly LPD patients seemed to have higher overall morbidity (41% vs. 20%, P = 0.05) compared to non-elderly patients. This difference is even more significant in our multivariable analysis model with an odds ratio of 4.48 (95% CI 1.31-17.87, P = 0.018). The 90-days mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and post-operative hospital stay (POHS) were similar in two groups. Elderly LPD patients had less EBL and shorter POHS than elderly OPD patients. However, the mortality and morbidity rate were comparable in these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Aging patients have higher overall morbidity than younger patients in LPD. However, for aging population who need to undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy, LPD might have some advantages over OPD.

The Yonsei experience of 104 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies: a propensity score-matched analysis with open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

With continued technical advances in surgical instruments and growing expertise, several surgeons have performed laparoscopic pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) safely with good results, and the laparoscopic approach is being performed more frequently. We performed over 100 cases of L-PPPD and compared their outcomes to those of open PPPD (O-PPPD) using the large sample size. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD.

METHODS

From September 2012 to June 2017, PPPD was performed for 217 patients at Yonsei University Severance Hospital by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent O-PPPD (n = 113) and those who underwent L-PPPD (n = 104). We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographic and surgical outcomes. We also reviewed all previous studies of more than 100 cases.

RESULTS

The L-PPPD group had lesser intraoperative blood loss than the O-PPPD group (548.1 ml vs. 244.7 ml; p < 0.001). Both groups showed similar rates of negative resection margins (99.1% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.196). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between O-PPPD and L-PPPD (39.8% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.519). The clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates in the O-PPPD and L-PPPD groups were 18.8% and 13.5%, respectively (p = 0.311). There was no difference in 30- and 90-day mortality rates between the two groups (p = 0.479). Similar results were obtained after PSM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

L-PPPD can be a good alternative option for well-selected patients with periampullary lesions requiring PPPD.