Robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy (SRPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

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.

Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy for Left-Sided Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma May Reduce the Local Recurrence Rate

INTRODUCTION

Although several clinical applications have reported the usefulness of the radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) procedure for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, few studies have reported the advantages of RAMPS with respect to the local recurrence (LR) rate.

METHODS

As of 2018, 68 and 62 patients underwent RAMPS and standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy (SRPS). The first recurrence and all subsequent recurrence sites observed on images during a follow-up period and/or chemotherapy. The clinical variables are collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

LR only was found in 5 patients in the RAMPS group (5/68, 7.3%) and in 15 patients in the SRPS group (15/62, 24.2%; p = 0.008) as the first recurrence site. Any chemotherapies were not a risk factor for the incidence of LR. The 5-year cumulative LR rate was significantly lower in patients in the RAMPS group compared with those in the SRPS group (23.6% vs. 49.6%; p = 0.019). The 5-year overall survival was 42.2% in the RAMPS group and 33.0% in the SRPS group (p = 0.251).

CONCLUSION

The RAMPS procedure for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma may reduce the LR, cumulative LR rates.

A systematic scoping review of the initial experience with laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic malignancy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (L-RAMPS) is a validated surgical approach for the surgical treatment of pancreatic malignancies of the body and tail of the pancreas. Open (O-) RAMPS is an established technique that offers oncological efficacy and acceptable post-operative outcomes when compared to standard distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic malignancies. This review aimed to determine the types of evidence available for L-RAMPS, and its selection criteria and reported outcomes, using systematic scoping review methodology.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature was performed in September 2020. Data extracted included patient selection criteria, technical details, total number of L-RAMPS procedures performed, lymph nodes retrieved, resection margins, survival, LOS and complications.

RESULTS

Eight papers were eligible for inclusion, totalling 92 cases. There were no studies that directly compared O- to L-RAMPS. All reports were small retrospective cohorts with 3-30 patients. Selection criteria were reported in 4/8 studies and differed between studies. Technique descriptions were included in 6/8 studies. Studies reported a median of 5 (range 1-9) out of ten operative and clinical outcomes, including operative time median range 188-431 min, intraoperative blood loss median range 18-445 mL, R0 resection rate median range 91-100%, number of lymph nodes median range 11-43, and length of stay median range 12-20 days.

CONCLUSIONS

L-RAMPS is infrequently reported in the literature. There are currently no data to allow for direct comparison of O- and L-RAMPS. Reports of L-RAMPS have an acceptable oncological and safety profile. A standardised description of the operative technique and outcome reporting, as well as specific training initiatives may be beneficial to broaden the application of L-RAMPS.