Expanding laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy: major findings based on systematic review and meta-analysis

Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), when selectively utilized, has been shown to hasten recovery with outcomes comparable to open approaches, but access may not be equitable. This study explored variation in utilization of MIPS for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with a primary pancreatic neoplasm from 2010 to 2020. Study participants had diagnoses of clinical or pathologic stage 1-3 disease and received curative-intent surgery. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between surgical approach and patient and disease factors.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 73,137 patients: 51,408 underwent open surgery and 21,729 received MIPS. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was associated with reduced odds of MIPS (AOR 0.88; p = 0.02), while older age (AOR 1.17; p = 0.01), later year of diagnosis (AOR 1.57; p < 0.001), and private insurance coverage (AOR 1.30; p = 0.05) were associated with increased odds. When patients with adenocarcinoma were analyzed in isolation, disparities in MIPS utilization persisted even when controlling for disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors like age, race, and insurance coverage appear to vary in the utilization of MIPS technologies for the treatment of pancreatic malignancy. Addressing variation with robust mixed methods approaches in the future is proposed to incorporate prospective interventions with highly annotated outcomes for additional study.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as an alternative to open technique in treating periampullary tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) remain unclear. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors, with a particular focus on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient subgroup.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors. Endpoints and sensitive analysis were conducted for short-term endpoints. All statistical analysis was performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs yielding 1018 patients with periampullary tumors were included, of whom 511 (50.2%) were randomized to the LPD group. Total follow-up time was 90 days. LPD was associated with a longer operation time (MD 66.75; 95% CI 26.59 to 106.92; p = 0.001; I2 = 87%; Fig. 1A), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 124.05; 95% CI - 178.56 to - 69.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 86%; Fig. 1B), and shorter length of stay (MD - 1.37; 95% IC - 2.31 to - 0.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 14%; Fig. 1C) as compared with OPD. In terms of 90-day mortality rates and number of lymph nodes yield, no significant differences were found between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LPD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with periampullary tumors, with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of stay.

Risk factors of textbook outcome in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: results from a prospective high-volume center study

OBJECTIVE

Achieving textbook outcome (TO) implies a smooth recovery post-operation without specified composite complications. This study aimed to evaluate TO in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and identify independent risk factors associated with achieving TO.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial on LPD at West China Hospital (ChiCTR1900026653). Patients were categorized into the TO and non-TO groups. Perioperative variables were compared between these groups. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify the risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 200 consecutive patients undergoing LPD were included in this study. TO was achieved in 82.5% (n = 165) of the patients. Female patients (OR: 2.877, 95% CI: 1.219-6.790; P = 0.016) and those with a hard pancreatic texture (OR: 2.435, 95% CI: 1.018-5.827; P = 0.046) were associated with an increased likelihood of achieving TO.

CONCLUSIONS

TO can be achieved in more than 80% of patients in a high-volume LPD center. Independent risk factors associated with achieving TO included gender (male) and pancreatic texture (soft).

Feasibility, safety and oncological short-term outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer: Findings from a large sample from Vietnam

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for treatment of periampullary cancer in selected patients. However, this is a difficult procedure with a high complication rate. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 85 patients with suspected periampullary cancer who underwent LPD from February 2017 to January 2022 at University Medical Center at Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Among these, 15 patients were excluded from the data analysis because of benign disease confirmed by postoperative pathological examination. Among 70 patients, the mean age was 58.9 ± 8.9 years old and 51.4% were female. The conversion rate to open surgery was 7.1% (n = 5). Among those underwent LPD, the mean operating time and estimated blood loss were 509 ± 94 minutes and 267 ± 102 mL, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days, interquartile range (IQR) 7-12 days. The percentage of cumulative morbidity, pancreatic fistula and major complication was 35.4%, 12.3%, and 13.8%, respectively. The median of comprehensive complication index (CCI) was 26.2 (IQR 20.9-29.6). Three patients required reoperation due to severe pancreatic fistula (n = 2) and necrotizing pancreatitis (n = 1). There was no death after ninety-day. The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.6 ± 5.1. The percentage of R0 resection was 100%. With properly selected patients, LPD can be a feasible, safe and effective approach with acceptable short-term outcomes.

Effect of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic or Periampullary Tumors: Three-year Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate whether the potential short-term advantages of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) could allow patients to recover in a more timely manner and achieve better long-term survival than with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has been demonstrated to be feasible and may have several potential advantages over OPD in terms of shorter hospital stay and accelerated recovery than OPD.

METHODS

This noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 14 centers in China. The initial trial included 656 eligible patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors enrolled from May 18, 2018, to December 19, 2019. The participants were randomized preoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either LPD (n=328) or OPD (n=328). The 3-year overall survival (OS), quality of life, which was assessed using the 3-level version of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, depression, and other outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 656 patients [328 men (69.9%); mean (SD) age: 56.2 (10.7) years] who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed. For malignancies, the 3-year OS rates were 59.1% and 54.3% in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively ( P =0.33, hazard ratio: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86-1.56). The 3-year OS rates for others were 81.3% and 85.6% in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively ( P =0.40, hazard ratio: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.30-1.63). No significant differences were observed in quality of life, depression and other outcomes between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors, LPD performed by experienced surgeons resulted in a similar 3-year OS compared with OPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03138213.

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.

A Blumgart Anastomosis-Based Half-Invagination Pancreaticoenterostomy with Better Applicability to Laparoscopy and Lower Incidence of Pancreatic Leakage

Background

The Blumgart anastomosis (BA) is one of the safest anastomoses for pancreatic stump reconstruction. The incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and postoperative complications is low. However, how to make laparoscopic pancreaticoenterostomy easier and safer is still a topic to be discussed.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from April 2014 to December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Half-invagination anastomosis was performed in 20 cases (HI group), and the Cattell-Warren anastomosis was carried out in 26 cases (CW group). The amount of intraoperative bleeding, operation time, and postoperative catheterization time in the HI group was significantly less than those in the CW group. Besides, the number of patients at the Clavien-Dindo grade III and above in the HI group was significantly less than that in the control group. Moreover, the incidence of POPF in the HI group was significantly lower than that in the CW group. Furthermore, fistula risk score (FRS) analysis showed that there was no high-risk group, and the highest risk in the medium-risk group was pancreatic leakage. In addition, the incidence of pancreatic leakage in the HI group and CW group was 7.7% and 46.67%, respectively, while the incidence of pancreatic leakage in the HI group was significantly lower than that in the CW group.

Conclusions

The half-invagination pancreaticoenterostomy based on the Blumgart anastomosis should have good applicability under laparoscopy and could effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic leakage.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been extended to periampullary cancers, but the oncologic outcome of MIPD for distal bile duct cancer (DBDC) has not been confirmed yet.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for DBDC of stage I-IIb from 2015 to 2019 at a tertiary referral center were identified and divided into open PD (OPD) and MIPD groups, the latter including laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Survival was compared between the two groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using predetermined factors, and exploratory mediation analysis was performed using surgery-derived outcomes.

RESULTS

MIPD (n = 81) group had more female patients (46.9% vs 31.6%, p = 0.011) and longer operation time (366.2 min vs. 279.1 min, p < 0.001) than the OPD (n = 288) group before IPTW. Otherwise, intraoperative and immediate postoperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. In oncologic outcomes, MIPD group showed comparable 3-year overall survival (78.2% vs 75.0%, p = 0.062) and recurrence-free survival (51.2% vs 53.4%, p = 0.871) rates with OPD group before IPTW, and MIPD was not related with survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.26, p = 0.18) and recurrence (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.949) after IPTW with consideration of potential mediators. Sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching also showed similar results for survival (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.44, p = 0.312) and recurrence (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.88, p = 0.653).

CONCLUSION

MIPD and OPD groups showed similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes. MIPD could be a considerable treatment option without oncological compromise in high-volume centers.

Tranexamic acid and blood loss in pancreaticoduodenectomy: TAC-PD randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Tranexamic acid (TXA) may reduce intraoperative blood loss, but it has not been investigated in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Adult patients undergoing planned PD for biliary, duodenal, or pancreatic diseases were randomly assigned to TXA or placebo groups. Patients in the TXA group were administered 1 g TXA before incision, followed by a maintenance infusion of 125 mg/h TXA. Patients in the placebo group were administered the same volume of saline as those in the placebo group. The primary outcome was blood loss during PD. The secondary outcomes included perioperative blood transfusions, operating time, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Between September 2019 and May 2021, 218 patients were randomly assigned and underwent surgery (108 in the TXA group and 110 in the placebo group). Mean intraoperative blood loss was 659 ml in the TXA group and 701 ml in the placebo group (mean difference -42 ml, 95 per cent c.i. -191 to 106). Of the 218 patients, 202 received the intervention and underwent PD, and the mean blood loss during PD was 667 ml in the TXA group and 744 ml in the placebo group (mean difference -77 ml, 95 per cent c.i. -226 to 72). The secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative TXA use did not reduce blood loss during PD.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs041190062 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp).

Pancreatic fistula and biliary fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: 500 patients at a single institution

Background

Pancreatic fistula (PF) and biliary fistula (BF) are two major leakage complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study is to investigate the risk factors of PF and BF after laparoscopic PD (LPD).

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 500 patients who underwent LPD from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020. Clinical data from patients were analysed using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

PF occurred in 86 (17.2%) patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that the soft texture of the pancreas (P = 0.001) was the independent risk factor for PF. BF occurred in 32 (6.4%) patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that history of cardiovascular disease (P < 0.001), surgical time (P = 0.005), pre-operative CA125 (P = 0.036) and pre-operative total bilirubin (P = 0.044) were independent risk factors for BF.

Conclusion

The texture of the pancreas was an independent risk factor for PF after LPD, which was consistent with the literatures. In addition, history of cardiovascular disease, surgical time, pre-operative CA125 and pre-operative total bilirubin were new independent risk factors for BF after LPD. Therefore, patients with high-risk factors of BF should be informed that they are at a high risk for this complication.

Surgical challenges during open pancreaticoduodenectomy in a patient with situs inversus totalis: A rare case report and literature review

Background

Situs inversus totalis is a rare congenital anomaly defined by a mirror-image of thoracic and abdominal viscera. Discrete cases of situs inversus totalis and its association with gastrointestinal tumors have been reported. Here we report the first case of pancreatic-head serous cystadenoma in patient with situs inversus totalis.

Case presentation

A 68-year-old woman presented with an abdominal mass that appeared four months ago. She was otherwise asymptomatic and her physical examination was unremarkable. Chest X-ray revealed dextrocardia. CT scan confirmed situs inversus totalis with an irregular, clear border, heterogenous pancreatic-head mass measuring 11 cm. Laboratory studies were within the reference range and pancreatic tumor markers were normal. We performed an elective open pancreaticoduodenectomy followed by an end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy, an end-to-side choledochojenunostomy, and a side-to-side gastrojejunostomy. The immediate postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged four days later without any complications. Four-month of follow-ups revealed no recurrent or relapsed disease.

Discussion

Although the steps of the Whipple procedure are almost the same in SIT patients. The main differences during the operation in SIT patients are the anatomical variations and how the surgeon will cope with them to avoid any mistakes.

Conclusion

The surgeons should improve their skills and gain control in both hands to easily adjust with the anatomic variations of situs inversus totalis and reduce the operation time and the associated risk of long operation time.

•

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare congenital anomaly defined by a mirror-image of thoracic and abdominal viscera.

•

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is more demanding and challenging to perform in patients with situs inversus totalis.

•

Surgeons should have a complete state of focus and take extreme care at each step during the operation.

•

Surgeons should improve their skills and gain control in both hands to adjust with the anatomic variations of SIT.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

Anterior approach in situ resection for total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining popularity in last decade. However, it is still technical challenging to perform LPD for patients with large periampullary tumors.

Methods

From January 2019 to January 2020, 13 cases of LPD were performed via anterior approach. Data were collected prospectively in terms of demographic characteristics (age, gender, body mass index, pathological diagnosis and tumor size), intra-operative variables (operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion), and post-operative variables (time for oral intake, post-operative hospital stay, and complications).

Results

There were five male patients and eight female patients included in this study. The median age of these patients was 52.7 ± 14.5 years. The median size of tumors was 7.2 ± 2.9 cm. One patient converted to open surgery because of uncontrollable hemorrhage. The median operative time was 356 ± 47 min. The median estimated blood loss was 325 ± 216 ml. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 12.4 ± 1.9 days. One patient suffered from grade B pancreatic fistula. One patient suffered from delayed gastric emptying which was cured by conservative therapy. 90-day mortality was zero.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy via anterior approach is safe and feasible for patients with large periampullary tumors. Its oncological benefit requires further investigation.

Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres

Pancreatic surgery has been one of the last areas for the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) because there are many factors that make laparoscopic pancreas resections difficult. The concept of service centralization has also limited expertise to a small cadre of high-volume centres in resource rich countries. However, this is not the environment that many surgeons in developing countries work in. These patients often do not have the opportunity to travel to high volume centres for care. Therefore, we sought to review the existing data on MIS for the pancreas and to discuss. In this paper, we review the evolution of MIS on the pancreas and discuss the incorporation of this service into low-volume and resource-poor countries, such as those in the Caribbean. This paper has two parts. First, we performed a literature review evaluating all studies published on laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas. The data in the Caribbean is examined and we discuss tips for incorporating this operation into resource poor hospital practice. Low pancreatic case volume in the Caribbean, and financial barriers to MIS in general, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, enucleation and cystogastrostomy are feasible operations to integrate in to a resource-limited healthcare environment. This is because they can be performed with minimal to no consumables and require an intermediate MIS skillset to complement an open pancreatic surgeon’s peri-operative experience.

Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a less invasive alternative to the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) approach used to treat periampullary tumors. However, previous studies examining the advantages of this surgery over OPD have produced mixed results. Here, a retrospective observational approach was used to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with periampullary tumors who underwent LPD or OPD at a single institution in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from hospital medical records collected over five years from patients that underwent OPD or LPD. Information on demographics, medical status, tumor characteristics, operative variables, complications, and mortality was examined. Survival curves were constructed and the stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery.

Results

Eighty-four patients aged 26–80 years were included. Twenty-two patients underwent LPD and 62 received OPD. The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group, and the LPD group was less likely to require a blood transfusion during surgery. While the short- and long-term survival rates did not differ for the procedures, the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and an age >65 years.

Conclusion

Both LPD and OPD procedures for treating periampullary tumors exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival rates observed. Future studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to further examine the treatment outcomes following these surgical approaches.

•

The OPD group was significantly more likely to require blood transfusion as compared to the LPD group (p=0.04).

•

The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group (p < 0.01).

•

Factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and age group > 65 years.

A laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a patient with situs inversus totalis

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a congenital disorder in which the thoracic and abdominal viscera organs are mirrored from their normal anatomical position. Thus, the presence of any cancerous mass in one of the visceral organs of patients with SIT represents a great challenge due to the anatomical variation. We report a 52-year-old male with SIT who presented with obstructive jaundice and pancreatic-head mass. After preoperative examinations, it was decided to perform a laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this case, we aim to demonstrate the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer in an SIT patient, in addition to presenting the advantages and difficulties of laparoscopic surgery in this case.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

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.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

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.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Before this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Achilles'heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy: reconstruction of the remnant pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is a challenging procedure and is considered the Achilles' heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Multiple techniques of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction have been reported, but the optimal technique remains unclear.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides a brief introduction to the developmental status and major related complications of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction. We reviewed all published literature on the technology of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction within the last 5 years and herein discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different reconstruction methods. We also discuss several details of different reconstruction techniques in terms of their significance to the operation and complications.

EXPERT OPINION

No individual method of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is considered optimal for all conditions. The reconstruction strategy should be based on the surgeon's proficiency with laparoscopic technology and the patient's individual risk factors. Personalized methods of pancreatic reconstruction may more effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.

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.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study in elderly people

The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is safe and feasible for elderly patients. From December 2015 to January 2019, 142 LPD surgeries and 93 OPD surgeries were performed by the same surgeon in the third affiliated hospital of Soochow University. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we retrospectively collected the date of three defined groups: LPD aged < 70 years (group I, 84 patients), LPD aged ≥ 70 years (group II, 56 patients) and OPD aged ≥ 70 years (group III, 28 patients). Baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of group I and group II, group II and group III were compared. Totally, 168 patients were included in this study; 100 cases were men; 68 cases were women; mean age was 67.9 ± 9.5 years. LPD does not perform as well in elderly as it does in non-elderly patients in terms of intraoperative blood loss (300.0 (200.0-500.0) ml vs. 200.0 (100.0-300.0) ml, p = 0.003), proportion of intraoperative transfusion (17.9% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.026) and time to oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 5.0 (3.0-6.0) day, p = 0.036). Operative time, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality were similar in two groups. In elderly patients, when compared with OPD, LPD had the advantage of shorter time to start oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 7.0 (5.0-11.3) day, p = 0.005) but the disadvantage of longer operative time (380.0 (306.3-447.5) min vs. 292.5 (255.0-342.5) min, p < 0.001) and higher hospitalization cost (12447.3 (10,189.7-15,340.0) euros vs. 7251.9 (8994.0-11,717.4) euros, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality. LPD is safe and feasible for elderly people, but we need to consider its high cost and long operative time over OPD.

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.

Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic outcomes and long-term survival

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

Substantial evidence demonstrated that LPD is technically safe and feasible with perioperative outcomes equivalent to that of OPD. However, for patients with malignancy, especially PDAC, the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of patients who underwent LPD remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Studies on LPD for the treatment of PDAC published before December 25, 2018 were searched online. The oncologic outcomes (e.g., numbers of lymph nodes retrieved, negative margin (R0) resection), and long-term survival (postoperative survival from 1 to 5 year) of LPD were compared to that of ODP.

RESULTS

After screening 1507 studies, six comparative cohort studies, which reported the oncologic outcomes and long-term survival of patients with PDAC were included. No significant difference was found between LPD and OPD regarding lymph nodes harvested (OR 1.96, 95% CI - 1.17 to 5.09, p = 0.22), R0 rate (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.06, p = 0.05), number of positive lymph nodes (OR - 0.44, 95% CI - 1.06 to 0.17, p = 0.16), rate of adjuvant treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59, p = 0.86) and time to adjuvant treatment (OR - 6.21, 95% CI - 16.00 to 3.59, p = 0.21). LPD showed similar 1-year (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.65, p = 0.28), and 2-year survival (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.66, p = 0.13) to that of OPD. The 3-year (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02, p = 0.007), 4-year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.93, p = 0.04), and 5-year survival (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.31, p = 0.001) were significantly longer in LPD group.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of PDAC, the oncologic outcomes of LPD were equivalent to that of OPD; LPD seemed promising regarding the postoperative long-term survival.

Pitfalls for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Need for a stepwise approach

Because of today's advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative management skills, surgeons are beginning to explore the usefulness of the laparoscopic approach in managing periampullary tumors. However, as a result of its innate complexity and associated high surgery-related complications, its applicability to the general surgical community remains controversial. To date, only retrospective data from high-volume centers support the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (Lap PD) for the treatment of benign conditions and malignant periampullary tumors. In addition, various surgical techniques in terms of port placement, dissection, and reconstruction have evolved in different centers depending on the preferred method commonly used by the surgeon through accumulated experience. In our center, we used a stepwise approach and standardized our surgical technique to overcome this technically demanding procedure. A collaborative implementation of video review and analysis, practice training and simulation, operating room didactics, and strict adherence to our stepwise approach in Lap PD, might potentially improve the surgical skills of young hepatobiliary surgeons and possibly overcome the volume-based learning curve of Lap PD.

Minimally Invasive Surgery of Pancreatic Cancer: Feasibility and Rationale

Minimally invasive pancreatic procedures, in particular minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy, are amongst the most technically challenging procedures in general surgery. Accordingly, a high number of cases is required to master the procedures. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is well established for benign and premalignant lesions of the pancreas. Borderline resectable tumors with infiltration of the portal vein are also resected minimally invasively in specialized centers with appropriate expertise. Retrospective and registry studies demonstrate an equivalent long-term survival compared to conventional surgery. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are also equivalent, whereas minimally invasive surgery significantly reduces hospital stay. We expect more widespread use of minimally invasive pancreatic procedures in large centers.