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

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.

Outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pancreatoduodenectomies in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: analysis of ACS-NSQIP data

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents a significant challenge owing to its aggressive nature. Traditionally performed as open surgery, the advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) including laparoscopic and robotic techniques, offers a potential alternative. This study assessed the use and outcomes of MIS and open PD for PDAC treatment.

METHODS

We analyzed ACS-NSQIP data (2015-2021) using regression models to compare patient outcomes across open PD, MIS PD, and conversions from MIS to open (MIS-O).

RESULTS

Of 19,812 PDAC patients, 1,293 (6.53%) underwent MIS, 18,116 (91.44%) underwent open PD, and 403 (2.03%) underwent MIS converted to open PD (MIS-O). The MIS rate increased from 6.1% to 9.2%. Black patients had a higher MIS-O rate (RR, 1.55; p = 0.025). Open PD was associated with more severe conditions (ASA ≥ III, malnutrition) and prior radiation therapy. MIS patients more often had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Complex procedures, such as vein resection, favored open PD. Need for arterial resection was associated with MIS-O (RR, 2.11; p = 0.012), and operative time was significantly associated with MIS (OR: 4.32, 95% CI: 3.43-5.43, p-value: < 0.001) No differences in the overall morbidity or 30-day mortality were observed. MIS led to shorter stays but higher risks of reoperation and pulmonary embolism. MIS-O increased the delayed gastric emptying rate (RR, 1.79; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

During 2015-2021, an increasing number of patients with PDAC are undergoing MIS PD. Morbidity and mortality did not differ between open and MIS PD. MIS was performed more frequently in patients with better nutritional status and lower ASA, or when vascular resection was not anticipated. In well selected patients, short-term outcomes of MIS and open PD seem similar.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with overweight or obesity: a meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of overweight or obesity among patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy is on the rise. The utilisation of robotic assistance has the potential to enhance the feasibility of performing minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in this particular group of patients who are at a higher risk. The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in individuals with overweight or obesity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This investigation will systematically search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies that compare robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with overweight or obesity, using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases. The methodological quality of studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RevMan software (V.5.4.1) will be used for statistical analysis. The OR and weighted mean differences will be calculated separately for dichotomous and continuous data. The selection of a fixed-effects or random-effects model will depend on the level of heterogeneity observed among the included studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted based on data in the published literature from publicly available databases. Therefore, ethics approval is not applicable. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023462321.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Long-term outcome from a tertiary care centre

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy (WPD) is one of the most advanced minimally invasive procedures. In recent years, with advancements in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic WPD has been increasingly adopted as a safe and feasible technique. This study aims to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic WPD to open WPD in resectable ampullary, periampullary and head of pancreas malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent WPD from January 2015 to January 2021 at the department of surgical gastroenterology in a tertiary care medical college hospital was conducted. Patient demographics and pre-operative details, intraoperative parameters (operating time and blood loss), post-operative length of hospital stay, median intensive care unit (ICU) stay, time to resume oral diet, post-operative complications, interventional procedures, mortality, 3-year survival, 3 year recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients underwent WPD during our study period; 14 patients underwent laparoscopic WPD and 28 patients underwent open WPD. None required conversion. The majority of the patients had periampullary carcinoma in both the groups. Laparoscopic WPD showed a trend towards shorter ICU stays, hospital stays and surgical site infections (SSIs) compared to open WPD. The median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic WPD group (380 min) compared to the open group (285 min). However, median blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (250 mL vs. 300 mL). The pancreas-specific post-operative complications like delayed gastric emptying, post-operative pancreatic fistula or post-operative pancreatic haemorrhage did not differ significantly between the groups. All patients had R0 resection and the mean lymph node yield was comparable between the two groups (14.92 vs. 13.42). The reoperation rate or mortality rate did not show any statistical significance between the two groups. The overall survival was 46 months in the open group and 48 months in the laparoscopic group. Three-year survival was 74.1% in the open WPD group and 69.2% in the laparoscopic group. Three-year recurrence-free survival was 55.5% in the open group and 69.23% in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic WPD appears to be safe and feasible, with similar short-term and long-term survival outcomes. With a trend favouring laparoscopic WPD in terms of blood loss, hospital and ICU stay and post-operative SSIs, it should be offered to selected patients when the expertise is available.

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

RESULTS

A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

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.

Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of Current Treatment and Novel Therapies

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes for cancer-related deaths in the United States. Majority of patients present with unresectable or metastatic disease. For those that present with localized disease, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to maximize survival and optimize outcomes. The quality and safety of surgery for pancreatic cancer have improved in recent years with increasing adoption of minimally invasive techniques and surgical adjuncts. Systemic chemotherapy has also evolved to impact survival. It is now increasingly being utilized in the neoadjuvant setting, often with concomitant radiation. Increased utilization of genomic testing in metastatic pancreatic cancer has led to better understanding of their biology, thereby allowing clinicians to consider potential targeted therapies. Similarly, targeted agents such as PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint- inhibitors have emerged with promising results. In summary, pancreatic cancer remains a disease with poor long-term survival. However, recent developments have led to improved outcomes and have changed practice in the past decade. This review summarizes current practices in pancreatic cancer treatment and the milestones that brought us to where we are today, along with emerging therapies.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Increased Adoption and Improved Outcomes: Is Laparoscopy Still Justified?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015-July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) -1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.

State-of-the-Art and Upcoming Innovations in Pancreatic Cancer Care: A Step Forward to Precision Medicine

Pancreatic cancer remains a social and medical burden despite the tremendous advances that medicine has made in the last two decades. The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing, and it continues to be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. The difficulty of early diagnosis (the lack of specific symptoms and biomarkers at early stages), the aggressiveness of the disease, and its resistance to systemic therapies are the main factors for the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer. The only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgery, but the vast majority of patients with pancreatic cancer have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. Pancreatic surgery is among the most challenging surgical procedures, but recent improvements in surgical techniques, careful patient selection, and the availability of minimally invasive techniques (e.g., robotic surgery) have dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatic surgery. Patients who are not candidates for surgery may benefit from locoregional and systemic therapy. In some cases (e.g., patients for whom marginal resection is feasible), systemic therapy may be considered a bridge to surgery to allow downstaging of the cancer; in other cases (e.g., metastatic disease), systemic therapy is considered the standard approach with the goal of prolonging patient survival. The complexity of patients with pancreatic cancer requires a personalized and multidisciplinary approach to choose the best treatment for each clinical situation. The aim of this article is to provide a literature review of the available treatments for the different stages of pancreatic cancer.

Vitamin E in the management of pancreatic cancer: A scoping review

Pancreatic cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Research investigating effective management strategies for pancreatic cancer is ongoing. Vitamin E, consisting of both tocopherol and tocotrienol, has demonstrated debatable effects on pancreatic cancer cells. Therefore, this scoping review aims to summarize the effects of vitamin E on pancreatic cancer. In October 2022, a literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus since their inception. Original studies on the effects of vitamin E on pancreatic cancer, including cell cultures, animal models and human clinical trials, were considered for this review. The literature search found 75 articles on this topic, but only 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. The available evidence showed that vitamin E modulated proliferation, cell death, angiogenesis, metastasis and inflammation in pancreatic cancer cells. However, the safety and bioavailability concerns remain to be answered with more extensive preclinical and clinical studies. More in-depth analysis is necessary to investigate further the role of vitamin E in the management of pancreatic cancers.

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.

Exploring the Surgical Outcomes of Pancreatic Cancer Resections Performed in Low- Versus High-Volume Centers

Introduction Pancreatic cancer resections comprise a class of complex surgical operations with a high postoperative morbidity rate. Due to the complicated nature of pancreatic resection, individuals who undergo this procedure are advised to visit a high-volume medical center that performs such pancreatic surgeries frequently. However, this specialized treatment option may not be available for uninsured patients or patients with other socioeconomic limitations that may restrict their access to these facilities. To gain a better understanding of the impact of healthcare disparities on surgical outcomes, we aimed to explore if there were significant differences in mortality rate post-pancreatic resection between high- and low-volume hospitals within San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. Methods We utilized the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) California Hospital Inpatient Mortality Rates and Quality Ratings public dataset to compare risk-adjusted mortality rates (RA-MR) of pancreatic cancer resections procedures. We focused on procedures performed in hospitals within San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange County from 2012 to 2015. To assess post-resection outcomes in relation to hospital volume, we utilized an independent T-test (significance level was set equal to 0.05) to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in RA-MR after pancreatic resection between high- and low-volume hospitals. Results During the 2012-2015 study period, 57 hospitals across San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties were identified to perform a total of 6,204 pancreatic resection procedures. The low-volume hospital group (N=2,539) was associated with a higher RA-MR of M=4.45 (SD=11.86). By comparison, the high-volume hospital group (N=3,665) was associated with a lower RA-MR of M=1.72 (SD=2.61). Conclusion Pancreatic resection surgeries performed at low-volume hospitals resulted in a significantly higher RA-MR compared to procedures done at high-volume hospitals in California.

Preliminary results of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnam: A retrospective analysis from a multi-center research

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to compare the results of LPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHOD

Data were retrospectively collected from a database of patients who underwent PD from January 2010 to May 2020. Intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up assessment studies were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were selected. Compared with OPD, LPD was fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (p = 0.015), a longer median operative time (p < 0.001), hospital stay (p = 0.034), a higher rate of bile leakage (p = 0.02), overall morbidity (p = 0.045), and re-operation (p = 0.044). There was no difference between the two groups in severe pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, delayed gastric emptying, Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III, or 30-day mortality. LPD had a similar number of excised lymph nodes, R0 resection rate, and long-term survival cases involving malignant tumors, ampulla of Vater cancer, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

In the early period, the benefit of LPD has not been found as there was a high rate of conversion to laparotomy, morbidity, and re-operation. Despite that, LPD is a feasible oncological approach with long-term survival comparable to OPD.

Postoperative complications and short-term prognosis of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been accepted worldwide for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), it is a very technical and challenging procedure. Also, it is unclear whether LPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study summarized the experience and efficacy of LPD for treating PDA in our medical center.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDA admitted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University from October 2019 and January 2021. Patients received either LPD or OPD. Clinical outcomes (operation time, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative hemorrhage), postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes were compared. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Among the PDA patients, 101 patients underwent surgical treatment, 4 patients converted from LPD to OPD, and 7 of them received conservative treatment. Forty-six patients were cured of LPD, and 1 of them died shortly after the operation. Moreover, 44 patients received OPD, and there were 2 postoperative deaths. There were significant differences in the location of the operation time, duration of anesthesia, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal infections, and postoperative pneumonia between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LPD was an independent factor negatively correlated with the incidence of pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 0.072, 95%CI: 0.016-0.326, p = 0.001) and abdominal infection (RR = 0.182, 95%CI: 0.047-0.709, p = 0.014). Also, there were no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.60-3.53, p = 0.40) and PFS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32, p = 0.37) at 12 months between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD could be efficacy and feasible for managing selected PDA patients. Also, LPD has a better effect in reducing postoperative pneumonia and abdominal infection compared to OPD.

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 safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and poor functional reserve remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPD in elderly patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies published from their inception to January 2022 reporting perioperative outcomes after LPD in elderly patients were included in the search (Group 1, comparing the perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in elderly patients; Group 2, comparing the perioperative outcomes after LPD between elderly and non-elderly patients). The evaluated outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative complications, conversion, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and readmission.

Results

In total 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of Group 1 showed that EBL, 90-day mortality, major morbidity, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, POP, POCE, and readmission were not significantly different between the LPD and the OPD group. LPD was associated with longer operative time, lower POPF rate, lower DEG rate, and shorter POHS. Pooled analysis of Group 2 showed that mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DEG, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, conversion, operative time, EBL, and readmission were not significantly different between the elderly and the non-elderly group. The POHS of elderly group was significantly longer than non-elderly group.

Conclusion

LPD may be a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients and is associated with short POHS.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matching analysis of long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown the short-term feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are comparable to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the long-term oncological safety of LPD in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LPD or OPD between July 2014 and July 2018 at our institution were identified, and those with resectable, pathologically diagnosed PDAC were analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between groups. Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

The original cohort consisted of 64 LPD and 80 OPD cases, in which, the laparoscopic group had a significantly longer median OS (25 vs. 17 months; P = 0.034). A higher proportion of laparoscopic patients received adjuvant therapy (51.6 vs. 32.5%; P = 0.021). PSM analysis identified 47 patient pairs. No significant differences in OS (21 vs. 17 months; P = 0.220) or adjuvant therapy utilization (53.2 vs. 38.3%; P = 0.248) were observed between the matched groups. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that receiving adjuvant therapy (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68), histopathological differentiation (poor vs. moderate-to-well differentiation; HR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26-2.95), and sex (female vs. male, HR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.30-0.75) were independent predictors of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be comparable to OPD in terms of long-term safety for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma when performed in a high-volume center.

Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2021: A summary of evidence-based surgical approaches

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Korea. Despite the increasing incidence and high mortality rate of pancreatic cancer, there are no appropriate surgical practice guidelines for the current domestic medical situation. To enable standardization of management and facilitate improvements in surgical outcome, a total of 10 pancreatic surgical experts who are members of Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery have developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date, evidence-based research findings and expert opinions. This is an English version of the Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2021. This guideline includes 13 surgical questions and 15 statements. Due to the lack of high-level evidence, strong recommendation is almost impossible. However, we believe that this guideline will help surgeons understand the current status of evidence and suggest what to investigate further to establish more solid recommendations in the future.

Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer 2021: A summary of evidence-based, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approaches

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death in Korea. To enable standardization of management and facilitate improvements in outcome, a total of 53 multi-disciplinary experts in gastroenterology, surgery, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and pathology in Korea developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date, evidence-based research findings and expert opinions. Recommendations were made on imaging diagnosis, endoscopic management, surgery, radiotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, and specific management procedures, including neoadjuvant treatment or adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. This is the English version of the Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer 2021. This guideline includes 20 clinical questions and 32 statements. This guideline represents the most standard guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in adults at this time in Korea. The authors believe that this guideline will provide useful and informative advice.

The comparation of short-term outcome between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex and delicate operations in abdominal surgery. With the development of laparoscopic techniques, more and more pancreatic experts have become skilled in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, the short-term efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear. Here, we performed a propensity score matching study aiming to compare the short outcomes of patients who underwent LPD or OPD after the learning curve and established a risk model of pancreatic fistula. The data of 346 patients who had OPD or LPD from July 2015 to January 2020 were retrieved. After a 1:1 matching, 224 patients remained. The operation time was significantly longer (P = 0.001) but the amount of bleeding was significantly lower (P = 0.001) in the LPD group than in the OPD group. Patients in LPD group had fewer blood transfusions (P = 0.002) than those in OPD group. More lymph nodes (P < 0.001) were dissected in LPD group. The rate of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was significantly higher in the LPD group than in the OPD group (16.1% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.002). By multi variate Logistic regression analysis, we identified pancreatic tumor, malignancy and low body mass index were risk factors of Grade B/C pancreatic fistula after PD operation. Then, we developed a Grade B/C pancreatic fistula nomogram with the risk factors. The C-index of the nomogram was 0.836 (95% CI 0.762-0.910). In conclusion, LPD could be technically feasible, get less trauma and achieve similar short-term outcome as compared with OPD.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Current topics in the surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly malignant. While cancers in other organs have shown clear improvements in 5-year survival, the 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is approximately 10%. Early relapse and metastasis are not uncommon, making it difficult to achieve an acceptable prognosis even after complete surgical resection of the pancreas. Studies have been performed on various treatments to improve the prognosis of PDAC, and multidisciplinary approaches including non-surgical treatments have led to gradual improvement. In the present literature review, we have described the significance of anatomical and biological resectability criteria, the concept of R0 resection in surgical treatment, the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the remarkable development of perioperative chemotherapy, the effectiveness of conversion surgery for unresectable PDAC, and ongoing challenges in PDAC treatment. We also provide an essential update on these subjects by focusing on recent trends and topics.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Is Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Feasible for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma?

Simple Summary

Pancreatic cancer is known to be one of the most lethal malignant diseases in gastrointestinal tract. Margin-negative pancreatectomy followed by postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is essential treatment for long-term survival. Due to anatomical complexity and technical difficulty, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is still controversial. However, with the advance of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic pancreatic resection of pancreatic head cancer has been carefully applied in well selected patients. The accumulating data are suggesting its technical feasibility, safety, and potential equivalent long-term oncologic outcome. In this review, the current status of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer is summarized. In addition, potential surgical indications and future perspectives of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer are discussed for safe implementation in our clinical practice.

Abstract

Margin-negative radical pancreatectomy is the essential condition to obtain long-term survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. With the investigation for early diagnosis, introduction of potent chemotherapeutic agents, application of neoadjuvnat chemotherapy, advancement of open and laparoscopic surgical techniques, mature perioperative management, and patients’ improved general conditions, survival of the resected pancreatic cancer is expected to be further improved. According to the literatures, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is also thought to be good alternative strategy in managing well-selected resectable pancreatic cancer. LPD with combined vascular resection is also feasible, but only expert surgeons should handle these challenging cases. LPD for pancreatic cancer should be determined based on surgeons’ proficiency to fulfil the goals of the patient’s safety and oncologic principles.

Analysis of pancreatic fistula risk in patients with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: what matters

Objective

To analyse potential risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

Methods

A retrospective study on risk factors for POPF was conducted in patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Basic characteristics, and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative patient data were collected and analysed.

Results

A total of 268 patients were enrolled in this study, including 54 patients with POPF following surgery (POPF incidence, 20.15%). Univariate analysis indicated that patient’s age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative bilirubin level, pancreas texture, and drainage fluid amylase level on day 1 following surgery were associated with POPF. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative bilirubin level ≥170 µmol/l, soft pancreas texture, BMI ≥25, and age ≥65 years were independent risk factors associated with POPF.

Conclusions

For patients with preoperative bilirubin level ≥170 µmol/l, soft pancreas texture, BMI ≥25 and age ≥65 years, clinically relevant measures should be taken as early as possible for the prophylaxis of POPF.

The Effect of Age on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Undergoing Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of age on outcomes with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of consecutive patients with PDAC undergoing LPD from January 2012 to April 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to age at admission for LPD: younger than 70 and 70 years or older.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients were included (<70 years, n = 96; ≥70 years, n = 51). The elderly LPD patients had lower serum albumin levels (mean, 37.9 [standard deviation, 4.8] g/L vs 40.7 [standard deviation, 6.8] g/L, P = 0.004) and a larger frequency of comorbidities (62.7% vs 36.5%, P = 0.002) than younger patients. The short-term outcomes showed no significant differences. The median overall survival time of the younger patients was not significantly greater than that of the elderly patients (20.0 [95% confidence interval, 16.1-23.9] months vs 19.0 [95% confidence interval, 13.8-24.2] months, P = 0.902).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of elderly patients with PDAC after LPD were similar to those of younger patients, despite a higher prevalence of multiple chronic illnesses and poorer nutritional conditioning among the elderly patients. These results show that LPD can be applied safely to elderly patients.

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.

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

Background

To discuss some inaccurate parts of a published systematic review and meta-analysis which was about comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in overall survival and perioperative outcomes.

Methods

Not applicable.

Results

The study enrolled overlapping patient cohorts and patients with a variety of disease histologies, not specific for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. They also reported different conclusion for R0 resection of 2 approaches in result and discussion part. Some data should be revised through statistical method, which could be polled to analysis.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this published systematic review and meta-analysis was not objective; therefor, the study may mislead readers, especially for those who just read the abstract of this study or not analysis this article in detail.

Perioperative and oncologic outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive (hybrid laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy: based on pancreatic fistula risk score and cancer/staging matched comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is a novel approach that scores over conventional minimally invasive approaches, even in pancreatic surgery. We investigated clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive (hybrid laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy (RA-MIPD).

METHODS

Total 150 patients who underwent RA-MIPD between 2015 and 2018 were compared with 710 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during the same period. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed, and propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to evaluate complications including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and oncologic outcomes in patients with malignancy.

RESULTS

PSM analysis was performed based on the pancreatic fistula risk. Patients undergoing RA-MIPD were younger (RA-MIPD vs. open PD: 61.2 vs. 65.5 years, P < 0.001); however, no significant intergroup difference was observed in sex (P = 0.091) and body mass index (P = 0.281). Operation time was longer in the RA-MIPD group (361.2 vs. 305.7 min, P < 0.001); however, estimated blood loss did not significantly differ (515.6 vs. 478.0 mL, P = 0.318). Overall complication (24.7% vs. 30.9%, P = 0.178) and CR-POPF rates (6.7% vs. 6.9%, P > 0.999) were similar. The RA-MIPD group showed lower pain scores and shorter length of postoperative hospitalization (11.5 vs. 17.2 days, P < 0.001). After PSM analysis for cancer and staging among patients with malignancies, no significant intergroup difference was observed in the R0 resection rate (96.7% vs. 93.3%, P = 0.527), tumor size (2.59 vs. 2.60 cm, P = 0.954), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (17.0 vs. 16.6, P = 0.793), and 2-year survival rates (84.4% vs. 77.8%, P = 0.898).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open PD, RA-MIPD is associated with better or at least similar early perioperative and equivalent midterm survival outcomes. RA-MIPD is safe and feasible and enables early postoperative recovery. RA-MIPD is expected to play a key role in near future.