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

Incidence and influencing factors of subsyndromal delirium in elderly patients with pancreatic surgery: a prospective study

Objective

To prospectively investigatethe incidence and influencing factors of Subsyndromal delirium (SSD) in elderly patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

Methods

According to a prospective observational study, elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) who underwent pancreatic surgery in the pancreatic center of our hospital from August 2023 to February 2024 were selected. Patients were divided into SSD and Normal groups based on the evaluation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98 in the first 1-4 days postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the influencing factors, and subject operating characteristic curves were used to assess the predictive effect of risk factors for subsyndromal delirium.

Results

A total of 179 elderly pancreatic surgery patients were included in this study. 67 elderly patients developed subsyndromal delirium with an incidence of 37.43%. Multivariable Logistic regression revealed that risk factors for SSD included age, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI), and postoperative fever, while and education level with senior high school or above was found to be protective factors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed that the combination of age and aCCI predicted SSD in elderly pancreatic surgery patients (Area Under Curve = 0.815, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.752 - 0.878), with sensitivity and specificity of 80.6% and 75.9%, respectively.

Conclusion

The incidence of subsyndromal delirium after elderly pancreatic surgery was as high as 37.43%. Effective assessment and prevention of subsyndromal delirium are crucial. In the early postoperative period, special attention should be given to elderly patients with more preoperative comorbidities and lower education levels, and their temperature should be monitored in a timely manner.

Goal-directed fluid therapy on the postoperative complications of laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery: An interventional comparative study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative fluid balance significantly affects patients' outcomes. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has reduced the incidence of major postoperative complications by 20% for 30 days after open abdominal surgery. Little is known about GDFT during laparoscopic surgery.

AIM

We investigated whether GDFT affects the postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery compared with conventional fluid management.

METHODS

This interventional comparative study with a historical control group was performed in the tertiary care center. Patients were allocated to one of two groups. The GDFT (n = 147) was recruited prospectively and the conventional group (n = 228) retrospectively. In the GDFT group, fluid management was guided by the stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (CI), whereas it had been performed based on vital signs in the conventional group. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to reduce selection bias (n = 147 in each group). Postoperative complications were evaluated as primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The amount of crystalloid used during surgery was less in the GDFT group than in the conventional group (5.1 ± 1.1 vs 6.3 ± 1.8 ml/kg/h, respectively; P <0.001), whereas the amount of colloid was comparable between the two groups. The overall proportion of patients who experienced any adverse events was 57.8% in the GDFT group and 70.1% in the conventional group (P = 0.038), of which the occurrence of pleural effusion was significantly lower in the GDFT group than in the conventional group (9.5% vs. 19.7%; P = 0.024). During the postoperative period, the proportion of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was lower in the GDFT group than that in the conventional group after PS matching (4.1% vs 10.2%; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

GDFT based on SV and CI resulted in a lower net fluid balance than conventional fluid therapy. The overall complication rate in laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery decreased after GDFT, and the frequency of pleural effusion was the most affected.

Evaluating Laparoscopic Skills: Report on the Origami Crane Folding Competition Using Laparoscopic Instruments With Objective Criteria

PURPOSE

To evaluate the importance of daily laparoscopic training using laparoscopic forceps to fold origami paper cranes (a traditional Japanese paper craft) and assess the performance of laparoscopic origami crane folding in an actual competition.

METHOD

A competition, named the "Kaminote Challenge World Championship," was used to evaluate the effectiveness of training. The participants folded the paper cranes using laparoscopic forceps. The judges evaluated the speed at which the paper cranes were folded and the quality of the completed cranes, using objective criteria.

RESULTS

The competition was held twice, in 2022 and 2023, with 27 and 36 participants, respectively. The participants were surgeons, veterinarians, and students from Japan, Mexico, and Vietnam. The completion rate for folding a paper crane within seven minutes was 70.4% in 2022 (19/27) and 44.4% in 2023 (16/36). In the second competition, 75.0% (12/16) of the participants who completed the origami crane within seven minutes had practiced folding more than 1,000 cranes. Despite the competitive pressure, the top performers folded paper cranes with minimal deductions for quality and used the laparoscopic forceps precisely. The winners of the 1st prize in 2022 and 2023 completed the task in 2 min 46 s and 2 min 45 s, respectively, without any penalty.

CONCLUSIONS

Training by folding paper cranes using laparoscopic forceps is highly likely to lead to improved laparoscopic surgery skills. Such competitions may also be useful as an opportunity for individuals to demonstrate their forceps manipulation ability and maintain motivation.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Systematic Review Registration

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

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Surgical Perspectives of Open vs. Laparoscopic Approaches to Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy: A Comprehensive Review

Pancreaticojejunostomy, a critical step in pancreatic surgery, has significantly evolved surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques. This comprehensive review explores open surgery's historical success, advantages, and disadvantages, emphasizing surgeons' accrued experience and familiarity with this approach. However, heightened morbidity and prolonged recovery associated with open pancreaticojejunostomy underscore the need for a nuanced evaluation of alternatives. The advent of robotic-assisted surgery introduces a paradigm shift in pancreatic procedures. Enhanced dexterity, facilitated by wristed instruments, allows intricate suturing and precise tissue manipulation crucial in pancreatic surgery. Three-dimensional visualization augments surgeon perception, improving spatial orientation and anastomotic alignment. Moreover, the potential for a reduced learning curve may enhance accessibility, especially for surgeons transitioning from open techniques. Emerging technologies, including advanced imaging modalities and artificial intelligence, present promising avenues for refining both open and minimally invasive approaches. The ongoing pursuit of optimal outcomes mandates a judicious consideration of surgical techniques, incorporating technological advancements to navigate challenges and enhance patient care in pancreaticojejunostomy.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database.

BACKGROUND

Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

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.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study

OBJECTIVE

Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain.

METHODS

This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Obesity Is Associated With Increased Risk for Adverse Postoperative Outcomes After Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting reports exist about the effect obesity has on adverse postoperative surgical outcomes after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of this study is to explore the role of obesity in terms of morbidity and pancreas-specific complications following DP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DP at a single institution over 10 y were analyzed (2009-2020). Patients were categorized as nonobese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Independent predictors of adverse postoperative outcomes were calculated using multivariate logistic regression models. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 178 patients included, 58 (32.5%) were obese. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) formation rate was significantly higher in the obese group (20.6% versus 7.5%, P value = 0.011). We did not identify any significant difference between obese and nonobese patients in median overall survival (30.2 mon versus 28.9 mon, P value = 0.811). On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, BMI ≥ 30 was an independent predictor of morbidity (any complication) and CR-POPF formation after DP for PDAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk for CR-POPF in patients undergoing DP for PDAC. Obesity should be considered as a variable in fistula risk calculators for DP.

Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies

BACKGROUND

We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted pancreatic resection in patients with previous minor abdominal surgeries: a single-center experience of the first three years

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is limited to specialized high-volume centers and selected patient cohorts. Especially for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the standard procedure remains open surgery due to the fear of complications caused by abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical) at our center (Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) were collected prospectively and further analyzed from October 2017 to October 2020. Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. In univariate and multivariate analysis, baseline and perioperative parameters of patients with a history of prior abdominal surgeries (PS) were compared to those of patients with no history of prior abdominal surgeries (NPS).

RESULTS

Out of 131 patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery, 62 (47%) had a history of abdominal surgery. Previous procedures included most often appendectomy (32%) followed by gynecological surgery (29%) and cholecystectomy (27%). 24% of PS had received multiple surgeries prior to the robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. We did not detect differences in the duration of surgery (262 min), conversion rates (10%), and postoperative complications between NPS and PS. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and in-house mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed male sex and high BMI as a potential predictive factor for severe postoperative complications. Other characteristics like the type of pancreatic resection, ASA, and underlying malignancy showed no difference in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery to be safe and feasible for patients with a history of minor prior abdominal surgery. Hence, each patient should individually be evaluated for a minimally invasive approach regardless of a history of previous operations.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Versus Conventional Open Approach for Patients With Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD vs. OPD), we performed a meta-analysis of currently available propensity score matching studies and large-scale retrospective cohorts to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD for patients with PDAC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021250395. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, 30-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, overall survival, and long-term survival) were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 10 retrospective studies enrolling a total of 11,535 patients (1,514 and 10,021 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively). The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival time, 1-year survival, 2-year survival, 30-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, POPF, DGE, PPH, and lymph node dissection between the LPD and OPD groups. Nevertheless, compared with the OPD group, LPD resulted in significantly higher rate of R0 resection (OR: 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.40; p = 0.005), longer operative time (WMD: 60.01 min; 95% CI 23.23-96.79; p = 0.001), lower Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III rate (p = 0.02), less blood loss (WMD: -96.49 ml; 95% CI -165.14 to -27.83; p = 0.006), lower overall morbidity rate (OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; p = 0.002), shorter LOS (MD = -2.73; 95% CI -4.44 to -1.03; p = 0.002), higher 4-year survival time (p = 0.04), 5-year survival time (p = 0.001), and earlier time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (OR: -10.86; 95% CI -19.42 to -2.30; p = 0.01).

Conclusions

LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD for patients with PDAC, and compared with OPD, LPD seemed to provide a similar OS.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

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

Introduction

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

Material and method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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