Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a review of 285 published cases

The Role of C-reactive Protein and Procalcitonin in Predicting the Occurrence of Pancreatic Fistula in Patients who Underwent Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Retrospective Study

The occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a significant concern, yet there is currently a lack of consensus on reliable predictive methods for this complication. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) values and their reliability in early predicting the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) following LPD.A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 120 patients who had LPD between September 2019 and December 2021. Preoperative assessment data, standard patients' demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, intra- and postoperative evaluation, as well as postoperative laboratory values on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 7, including white blood cells (WBCs), CRP, and PCT, were prospectively recorded on a dedicated database. Two clinicians separately collected and cross-checked all of the data.Among 120 patients [77 men (64%), 43 women (36%], CRPF occurred in 15 patients (11 grade B and 4 grade C fistulas). The incidence rate of CRPF was 12.3%. A comparison of the median values of WBCs, PCT, and CRP across the two groups revealed that the CRPF group had higher values on most PODs than the non-CRPF group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and cutoff values. It was discovered that POD 3 has the most accurate and significant values for WBCs, CRP, and PCT. According to the ROC plots, the AUC for WBCs was 0.842, whereas the AUC for PCT was 0.909. As for CRP, the AUC was 0.941 (95% CI 0.899-0.983, p < 0.01) with a cutoff value of 203.45, indicating a sensitivity of 93.3% and specificity of 91.4%.Both CRP and PCT can be used to predict the early onset of CRPF following LPD, with CRP being slightly superior on POD 3.

A Short-Term Outcomes Comparison of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy at Different Stages of Learning Curves: A Single Center Report

Background: With the development of surgical instruments and the growth of professional expertise over the past decades, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely applied in different centers. However, there are still some controversies about the safety of this procedure. Meanwhile, perioperative outcomes are affected by hospital size, surgeon experience, and the learning curve. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of LPD with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) at different stages of the learning curve. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 911 patients who had received pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) at a single institution. Among them, 208 patients underwent OPD, and 703 cases received LPD successfully. We divided those patients into three phases based on the key point of the learning curve for LPD and compared the perioperative outcomes with OPD at each stage. Result: Morbidity and mortality rates associated with LPD were significantly higher in the initial stage than in the OPD group, whereas the number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate for pancreatic cancer were comparable to the OPD group. As surgical experience increased, postoperative complications, operating time, and intraoperative blood loss all are greatly decreased. At the mature stage of the learning curve, the rate of postoperative complications in LPD was lower than in the OPD group. Meanwhile, the length of hospital stay was significantly shortened compared to the OPD group. Conclusion: After a long period of training and learning, LPD can be performed safely. And LPD can produce comparable oncological results, with faster postoperative recovery and lower incidence of postoperative complications, after the surgeons successfully surmounted the learning curve.

Impact of conversion at time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy on perioperative and long-term outcomes: Review of the National Cancer Database

Backgrounds/Aims

Current literature presents limited data regarding outcomes following conversion at the time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD).

Methods

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified into three groups: MI-PD, converted to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (CO-PD), and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PD). Multivariable modeling was applied to compare outcomes of MI-PD and CO-PD to those of O-PD.

Results

Of 17,570 patients identified, 12.5%, 4.2%, and 83.4% underwent MI-PD, CO-PD, and O-PD, respectively. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) resulted in a higher lymph node yield (n = 23.2 ± 12.2) even when requiring conversion (n = 22.4 ± 13.2, p < 0.001). Margin positivity was higher in the CO-PD group (26.6%) than in the MI-PD group (21.3%) and the O-PD (22.6%) group (p = 0.017). Length of stay was shorter in the MI-PD group (laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy 10.4 ± 8.6, R-PD 10.6 ± 8.8) and the robotic converted to open group (10.7 ± 6.4) than in the laparoscopic converted to open group (11.2 ± 9) and the O-PD group (11.5 ± 8.9) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, both MI-PD (odds ratio = 1.40; p < 0.001) and CO-PD (odds ratio = 1.24; p = 0.020) were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of long-term survival.

Conclusions

CO-PD does not negatively impact perioperative or oncologic outcomes.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Hybrid Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy. A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid laparoscopic techniques have been proposed as a good transition from open to complete minimally invasive approach especially in complex surgical procedures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A broad search strategy with terms "laparoscopy" and "pancreatoduodenectomy" was used. Included studies were analyzed by quantitative meta-analysis using the metafor package for R software.

RESULTS

Of 655 identified articles, 627 were excluded and 28 articles fully assessed, including 14 comparative studies, 8 case series and 6 case reports. Extracted data included intraoperative variables and postoperative outcome parameters. The predefined inclusion criteria were met by 14 comparative studies, and 371 patients were pooled in the meta-analysis. Hybrid laparoscopic pacreatoduodenectomy was associated with significantly longer operative time (I² 0%, p = 0,01, Mean HPD 494,6 min, Mean OPD 421,6 min, WMD 67 min, 95% CI 14-120 min). For all other postoperative outcome parameters, no statistically significant differences were found. A nonsignificant reduction in intraoperative transfusion rate (I² 20%, p = 0,2, proportion HPD 2%, proportion OPD 1,6%, OR 0,44, 95% CI 0,16-1,27) and blood loss (I² 95%, p = 0,1, Mean HPD 397,2 ml, Mean OPD 1017,8 ml, MD - 601 ml, 95% CI - 1311-108) was observed for hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in comparison to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates significantly increased operation time for hybrid laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy. Intraoperative variables as well as postoperative parameters and major morbidity were comparable for both techniques. Overall results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the hybrid technique as a safe procedure in high-volume centers offering aspects of a safe transition to fully laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

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

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

Laparoscopic vs. Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After Learning Curve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Center Studies

Background: Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a safe and feasible treatment compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), surgeons need a relatively long training time to become technically proficient in this complex procedure. In addition, the incidence of complications and mortality of LPD will be significantly higher than that of OPD in the initial stage. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD after learning curve based on eligible large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Only clinical studies reporting more than 40 cases for LPD were included. Data on operative times, blood loss, and 90-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien–Dindo ≥III complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size) were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results: Overall, the final analysis included 13 retrospective cohorts and one RCT comprising 2,702 patients (LPD: 1,040, OPD: 1,662). It seems that LPD has longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD): 74.07; 95% CI: 39.87–108.26; p < 0.0001). However, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate (odds ratio (OR): 1.43; 95% CI: 1.10–1.85; p = 0.008), lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.22–0.56; p < 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD: −197.54 ml; 95% CI −251.39 to −143.70; p < 0.00001), lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.43–0.78; p = 0.0004), and shorter LOS (WMD: −2.30 day; 95% CI −3.27 to −1.32; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien–Dindo ≥ III complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE, PPH, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size between LPD and OPD.

Conclusion: Comparative studies indicate that after the learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD. In addition, LPD provides less blood loss, blood transfusion, wound infection, and shorter hospital stays when compared with OPD.

Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes following laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy after learning curve in the past 10 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years.

Methods

A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), 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).

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD.

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.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery is popular around the world, its safety and efficacy over classical open surgery is still controversial. The purpose of this article is to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database up to July 29, 2018 was performed and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software with Fixed and random effects models applied. The IRB approval and written consent were not needed for this paper.

RESULTS

Twelve non-randomized retrospective studies and 1 non-randomized prospective study consisting of 2403 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were 788 (33%) patients in the RPD group and 1615 (67%) patients in the OPD group. Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 71.74 min; 95% CI 23.37-120.12; p = 0.004), patient might benefit from less blood loss (WMD: - 374.03 ml; 95% CI - 506.84 to - 241.21; p < 0.00001), shorter length of stay (WMD: - 5.19 day; 95% CI - 8.42 to - 1.97; p = 0.002), and lower wound infection rate (odds ratio: 0.17; 95% CI 0.04-0.80; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was observed in positive margin rate, lymph nodes harvested, postoperative complications, reoperation or readmission rate, and mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are needed.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

Background

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

Main body

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

Conclusion

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.

Pitfalls for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Need for a stepwise approach

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

A Comparison of Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hepatic and Pancreatic Resections Among the Medicare Population

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures.

RESULTS

A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.

Postoperative Bleeding After Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Achilles' Heel?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is technically demanding, and its impact on postoperative outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term outcomes between laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in order to assess the safety of LPD.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2014, all consecutive patients undergoing LPD or OPD at two tertiary centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, pathological diagnosis, and pancreatic texture. Results for the two groups were compared for postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-five LPD were performed and compared to 290 OPD. In the whole population, postoperative pancreatic fistula (PF) was higher in the LPD group, but the proportion of ampullary adénocarcinoma (25 vs. 10%, p = 0.004) and soft pancreatic parenchyma (52 vs. 38%, p = 0.001) were higher in the LDP group. After matching (n = 65), LPD was associated with longer operative time (429 vs. 328 min, p < 0.001) and lower blood loss (370 vs. 515 mL, p = 0.047). The PF rate and its severity were similar (33 vs. 27%, p = 0.439, p = 0.083) in the two groups. However, both complications (78 vs. 71%, p = 0.030) and major complications (40 vs. 23%, p = 0.033) were more frequent in the LPD group. LPD patients experience more postoperative bleeding (21 vs. 14%, p = 0.025) compared to their open counterparts. In multivariate analysis, perioperative transfusion (OR = 5 IC 95% (1.5-16), p = 0.008), soft pancreas (OR = 2.5 IC 95% (1.4-4.6), p = 0.001), and ampullary adenocarcinoma (OR = 2.6 IC 95% (1.2-5.6), p = 0.015) were independent risks factors of major complications.

CONCLUSION

Despite lower blood loss and lower intraoperative transfusion, LPD leads to higher rate of postoperative complications with postoperative bleeding in particular.

Matched Case-Control Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Malignant Lesions

INTRODUCTION

Advances in surgical technologies allowed safe laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes of LPD to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of safety and recurrence rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of 30 patients were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists, tumor size, pancreatic duct diameter, and histopathologic diagnosis on a 1:1 basis (15 LPD, 15 OPD). Comparison between groups was performed on intention-to-treat basis. Survival following resection was compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The median operating time for LPD group was longer than for OPD group (470 vs. 310 min; P=0.184). However, estimated blood loss (300 vs. 620 mL; P=0.023), high dependency unit stay (2.0 vs. 6.0 d; P=0.013) and postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 17.4 d; P=0.017) were significantly lower in the LPD group. There was no significant difference in postoperative rates of morbidity (40% vs. 67%; P=0.431) and mortality (0% vs. 6.7%; P=0.99). The surgical resection margins R0 status (87% vs. 73%; P=0.79) and the number of lymph nodes (18 vs. 20; P=0.99) in the resected specimens were comparable between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy in the hands of the experienced offers advantages over open surgery without compromising the oncologic resection.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and borderline malignant periampullary disease compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for benign and borderline malignant periampullary diseases.

METHODS

Of 107 pancreaticoduodenectomy cases for non-malignant diseases from March 1993 to July 2017, 76 patients underwent OPD and 31 patients received LPD. To adjust for baseline differences and selection bias, operative outcomes and complications were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 31 patients in each group were evaluated. As a result, significant differences were observed between two groups in some aspects: mean operative time (LPD 426.8 ± 98.58 vs. OPD 355.03 ± 100.0 min, p = 0.031), estimated blood loss (LPD 477.42 ± 374.80 vs. OPD 800.00 ± 531.35 ml, p = 0.008), and postoperative hospital stay (LPD 14.74 ± 5.40 vs. OPD 23.81 ± 11.63 days, p < 0.001). The average visual analogue scores for pain observed from patients in LPD group on postoperative day (POD) 1 (4.23 ± 1.83 vs. 5.55 ± 2.50, p = 0.021) and POD 3 (3.32 ± 1.66 vs. 5.26 ± 2.76, p = 0.002) were significantly less than those from patients in OPD group, as well. There were no significant differences between groups about major complications including the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is a safe procedure and provides less postoperative pain and the shortening length of hospitalization. LPD may serve the feasible alternative approach for benign and borderline malignant periampullary disease.

Total robotic surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with rectal cancer anterior resection: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Synchronous double malignancies, including carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and rectal carcinoma, are generally uncommon occurrences in the gastrointestinal tract.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The present study report a case of a 37-year-old man who was incidentally found to suffer from carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and rectal carcinoma.

DIAGNOSES

The duodenoscopy was performed and revealed an ulcerated and bulky ampulla of Vater, the biopsy from which revealed a moderate-differentiated adenocarcinoma, A local hospital colonoscopy confirmed a tumor located in rectal 7 cm from the anal margin and biopsy-confirmed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

About such patient treatment, both open and laparoscopic surgery are restricted because of operation complexity, large injury, and poor cosmetic effect. surgery performed using Da Vinci robotic surgical system (DVSS).

OUTCOMES

No evidence of recurrence or relapses was found in the first year after surgery.

LESSONS

Although sporadic double malignancies are uncommon, they should be considered when evaluating cancer patients. Complex surgery performed by robotic surgery may became surgeon's preferred treatment modality.

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy at an experienced institution is not associated with an increased risk of post-pancreatic hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) is a serious and life threatening complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The objective was to determine whether PPH incidence is elevated in a series of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from a high-volume institution and if video review can identify technical factors associated with PPH.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RPDs from October 2008 to March 2016 was performed. PPH was classified by established international criteria. Technical factors from RPD resection were ascertained using video analysis. Clinical and technical variables were analyzed using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 400 patients who underwent RPD PPH occurred in 19 (4.8%) and 168 (42%) had videos available to review. The technique of RPD was consistent but a falciform flap was performed routinely after RPD#181 and flaps were performed less (37.5% vs 75%) in the pseudoaneurysm group (p = 0.033). On univariate analysis of technical variables, gastroduodenal artery (GDA) mishandling and suture ligation were positive predictors of pseudoaneurysm formation while falciform flap placement was a negative predictor (all p < 0.05). GDA suture ligation remained significant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.006). A negative relationship was found between pseudoaneurysm occurrence and time (ρ = -0.533; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PPH in a large series of RPD is similar to reported rates in historical open control series; however, pseudoaneurysm is less common with increasing experience. Video review is a useful tool in identifying technical variables during in RPD.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in pancreatic cancer: Our initial experience

Pancreas cancer is an important cause of mortality worldwide. It has no particular symptoms, and may cause different complaints according to tumor diameter and localization. Local invasion may develop in the short term and distant metastasis may occur in vascular structures in its neighborhood. That's why, resectability rates are low at the time of diagnosis with a negative effect on survival rates. Minimally invasive surgery is being increasingly implemented in pancreas lesions owing to the positive short-term oncologic results of the technique in many other procedures. Traditionally, conventional open surgery is performed in pancreatic head tumors. As laparoscopic resection of pancreatic head cancer has serious technical difficulties and requires advanced laparoscopic experience, minimal invasive attempts in this field have not yet reached sufficient acceptance worldwide. Besides the fact that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy may provide sufficient short-term oncologic results that are comparative with open surgery, it can be implemented in selected patients in centers with advanced laparoscopic resection capacity. In this case series, we aimed to present our experience of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in pancreatic head cancer patients.

Contemporary review of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

AIM

To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

PD remains the only potentially curative treatment for periampullary malignancies, including, most commonly, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimally invasive approaches to this complex operation have begun to be increasingly reported in the literature and are purported by some to reduce the historically high morbidity of PD associated with the open technique. In this systematic review, we have searched the literature for high-quality publications describing minimally invasive techniques for PD-including laparoscopic, robotic, and laparoscopic-assisted robotic approaches (hybrid approach). We have identified publications with the largest operative experiences from well-known centers of excellence for this complex procedure. We report primarily short term operative and perioperative results and some short term oncologic endpoints.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques include laparoscopic, robotic and hybrid approaches and each of these techniques has strong advocates. Consistently, across all minimally invasive modalities, these techniques are associated less intraoperative blood loss than traditional open PD (OPD), but in exchange for longer operating times. These techniques are relatively equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity and short term oncologic outcomes. Importantly, pancreatic fistula rate appears to be comparable in most minimally invasive series compared to open technique. Impact of minimally invasive technique on length of stay is mixed compared to some traditional open series. A few series have suggested that initiation of and time to adjuvant therapy may be improved with minimally invasive techniques, however this assertion remains controversial. In terms of short-terms costs, minimally invasive PD is significantly higher than that of OPD.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approaches to PD show great promise as a strategy to improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PD, but the best results remain isolated to high-volume centers of excellence.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Surgery

Minimally invasive techniques have the potential to revolutionize the surgical management of pancreatic disease in the setting of benign and malignant processes. Pancreatic surgery, in particular, may be aided significantly by minimal access surgery given the high morbidity associated with traditional open pancreatic procedures. This article presents a review of two minimally invasive techniques for distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, focusing on metrics of technique, safety, morbidity, and oncologic outcomes and potential benefits.

The difficulties encountered in conversion from classic pancreaticoduodenectomy to total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND:

Recently, total laparoscopic pancreatectomy has been performed at many centres as an alternative to open surgery. In this study, we aimed to present the difficulties that we have encountered in converting from classic open pancreaticoduodenectomy to total laparoscopic pancreatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Between December 2012 and January 2014, we had 100 open pancreaticoduodenectomies. Subsequently, we tried to perform total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) in 22 patients. In 17 of these 22 patients, we carried out the total laparoscopic procedure. We analysed the difficulties that we encountered converting to TLPD in three parts: Preoperative, operative and postoperative. Preoperative difficulties involved patient selection, preparation of operative instruments, and planning the operation. Operative difficulties involved the position of the trocars, dissection, and reconstruction problems. The postoperative difficulty involved follow-up of the patient.

RESULTS:

According to our experiences, the most important problem is the proper selection of patients. Contrary to our previous thoughts, older patients who were in better condition were comparatively more appropriate candidates than younger patients. This is because the younger patients have generally soft pancreatic texture, which complicates the reconstruction. The main operative problems are trocar positions and maintaining the appropriate position of the camera, which requires continuous changes in its angles during the operation. However, postoperative follow-up is not very different from the classic procedure.

CONCLUSION:

TLPD is a suitable procedure under appropriate conditions.

Minimally Invasive vs. Open Hepatectomy: a Comparative Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat liver tumors has increased, data on perioperative outcomes of MIS relative to open liver resection (O-LR) are lacking. We sought to compare short-term outcomes among patients undergoing MIS vs. O-LR in a nationally representative database.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients undergoing hepatectomy between January 1 and December 31, 2014. Propensity score matching algorithm was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics among MIS and O-LR groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3064 patients were included in the study. After propensity matching, the baseline characteristics for O-LR and MIS groups were comparable (minimum p value = 0.12). Incidence of superficial surgical site infections, intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusions, and pulmonary embolism was lower among patients in MIS group compared to O-LR (p < 0.02). Liver failure and biliary leakage were also less frequent among patients undergoing MIS (p < 0.01). Similarly, MIS was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) compared to O-LR (p < 0.001). Of note, 30-day postoperative mortality and readmission were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing MIS had a lower postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS compared with patients undergoing O-LR. MIS is safe and may be associated with improved short-term outcomes following hepatic surgery.

Analysis of learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) may have potential minimal invasive advantages for selected patients in limited center. However, few studies analyzed the learning curve. This study aimed to analyze the learning curve of this procedure at a large volume set, and share our experience to surmount it.

METHODS

All prospectively maintained data of the consecutive LPDs was reviewed retrospectively. The procedures were performed by single surgeon. Patients were divided into four groups according to staged approach with different focuses: Group A (the first 30 patients), Group B (the second 30 patients), Group C (the third 30 patients), and Group D (the fourth and last 30 patients). And the changes of outcomes during different learning periods were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between September 2012 and July 2015, 120 patients underwent LPD. One hundred and eleven of them underwent totally LPD, and 9 patients underwent laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD). The mean operative time (OT), mean blood loss and average length of hospital stay (LOS) was 359.8±57.6 min, 169.7±152.6 mL and 17.0±9.8 d respectively. A total of 42 (35%) patients developed morbidity with no mortality. The mean overall OT tended to decrease from 370.2±52.8 min in Group A to 342.0±73.1 min in Group D with the accumulating experience of the surgeon. Moreover, mean OT of pancreatojejunostomy and choledochojejunostomy also tended to decrease from 55.0±8.7, 39.8±11.7 min in Group A to 43.6±7.6, 27.7±11.8 min in Group D respectively. Meanwhile, the clinical outcomes tended to get better. Mean blood loss, morbidity and LOS decreased from 219.3±147.9 mL, 43.3%, 18.7±10.0 d in Group A to 140.1±73.6 mL, 23.3%, 14.4±6.2 d in Group C respectively except for Group D.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine practice of the LPD procedure was feasible and safe. Gained experience can improve clinical outcomes in 30 to 60 operations by overcoming the learning curve.

Totally replaced right hepatic artery in pancreaticoduodenectomy: is this anatomical condition a contraindication to minimally invasive surgery?

BACKGROUND

The appropriate approach, in the case of an aberrant right hepatic artery (RHA) during open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), has already been established. The aim of our study is to analyze the short-term surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic PD in patients with anatomical variants, with a special focus on totally replaced RHA.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database collected from consecutive patients who underwent robotic PD at the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System between September 2007 and April 2015.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (20.5%) presented with an anatomical variation of the RHA. Four patients had an accessory RHA and 11 had a totally replaced RHA. 50% of the cases were recognized by the radiologist preoperatively. There were no significant differences in the pre- and postoperative outcomes of the aberrant and normal RHA group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the totally replaced RHA group was 22.8 ± 11.4. The rate of positive resection margins was 0% in the totally replaced RHA group and 9% in the normal RHA group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that robotic PD has no negative impact on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with a totally replaced RHA.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy with Ultrasound Still Has a Role in the Staging of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background. The reported incidence of noncurative laparotomies for pancreatic cancer using standard imaging (SI) techniques for staging remains high. The objectives of this study are to determine the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy with ultrasound (DLUS) in assessing resectability of pancreatic tumors. Study Design. We systematically searched the literature for prospective studies investigating the accuracy of DLUS in determining resectability of pancreatic tumors. Results. 104 studies were initially identified and 19 prospective studies (1,573 patients) were included. DLUS correctly predicted resectability in 79% compared to 55% for SI. DLUS prevented noncurative laparotomies in 33%. Of those, the most frequent DLUS findings precluding resection were liver metastases, vascular involvement, and peritoneal metastases. DLUS had a morbidity rate of 0.8% with no mortalities. DLUS remained superior to SI when analyzing studies published only in the last five years (100% versus 81%), enrolling patients after the year 2000 (74% versus 58%), or comparing DLUS to modern multidimensional CT (100% versus 78%). Conclusion. DLUS seems to still have a role in the preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer. With its ability to detect liver metastases, vascular involvement, and peritoneal metastases, the use of DLUS leads to less noncurative laparotomies.

Laparoscopic Splenectomy and Azygoportal Disconnection: a Systematic Review

Background and Objectives:

Given the technical difficulty of laparoscopic splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (LSD), data are limited that compare the laparoscopic to the open procedure. As the technique becomes more widespread, questions regarding its safety, feasibility, and reproducibility must be addressed. This review assesses the current status of LSD.

Methods:

We conducted our literature review with a search of the PubMed database. All published series of 5 or more laparoscopic splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection procedures were examined. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data analyzed included number of ports, conversion rate, operative duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications.

Results:

Fifteen articles met the review criteria. Of 412 laparoscopic procedures, traditional laparoscopic splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (TLSD) was used in 322 patients (78.2%), a modified laparoscopic procedure (MLSD) in 79 (19.2%), and a single-incision laparoscopic procedure (SLSD) in 11 (2.7%). Compared with the traditional and single-incision laparoscopic procedures, the MLSD procedure was associated with shorter operative duration and less blood loss. Furthermore, although the incidence of postoperative portal vein system thrombosis was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open splenectomy with azygoportal disconnection (OSD) procedure, the LSD procedure was associated with less pulmonary infection and pleural effusion and fewer incisional and overall complications than the open procedure. The rate of conversion to an open procedure was 5.4%.

Conclusions:

LSD is feasible and safe for selected patients when performed by an expert laparoscopic surgeon. It has perioperative advantages over OSD, but studies with longer follow-up periods and larger samples of patients are needed.

Full laparoscopic total pancreatectomy with and without spleen and pylorus preservation: a feasibility report

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is gaining acceptance and clear advantages have been demonstrated in distal resection. Total pancreaticoduodenectomy (TPD) combines the operative steps of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, but facilitates reconstruction and lowers the risk of common complications by avoiding the need for a pancreatic anastomosis. The aim of this report is to analyse the feasibility of laparoscopic total pancreaticoduodenectomy, with and without spleen and pylorus preservation.

METHODS

Two patients underwent laparoscopic TPD for pancreatic intraductal mucinous neoplasm and endocrine tumors. Total splenopancreaticoduodenectomy (TSP) and pylorus- and spleen-preserving total pancreaticoduodenectomy (PSPTP) were performed.

RESULTS

The two procedures were successfully completed laparoscopically. PSPTP was more time-consuming (420 vs. 360 min) and had an increased risk of hemorrhage (600 vs. 200 ml) compared with TSP. After both procedures, the postoperative outcome was uneventful and the postoperative length of hospital stay was 8 days.

CONCLUSIONS

This report confirms the feasibility of full laparoscopic TPD, and presents the first full laparoscopic pylorus- and spleen-preservation technique with conservation of the splenic vessels, without robotic assistance. No conclusions can be drawn from this report, but it shows that the laparoscopic approach provides visual magnification, improved exposure, and delicate manipulation of tissues, which may reproduce the clear advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Delayed Gastric Emptying After Stapled Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis of Duodenojejunostomy in Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Randomized Controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A retrospective analysis indicated that the incidence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) was less after using a circular stapler (CS) for duodenojejunostomy than that after hand-sewn (HS) anastomosis in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PpPD). This randomized clinical trial compared the incidence of DGE postoperative after CS duodenojejunostomy with that of conventional HS anastomosis in PpPD.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 101 patients (age 20-80) undergoing PpPD to receive CS duodenojejunostomy (group CS, n = 50) or HS duodenojejunostomy (group HS, n = 51) in two Japanese cancer center hospitals between 2011 and 2013. The patients were stratified by institution and size of the main pancreatic duct (<3 or ≥3 mm). The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade B or C DGE according to the international definition with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. This trial is registered with University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center: UMIN000005463.

RESULTS

Per-protocol analysis of data on 95 patients showed that grade B or C DGE was found in 4 (8.9 %) of 45 patients who underwent CS anastomosis and in 8 (16 %) of 50 patients who underwent HS anastomosis (P = 0.015). There were no differences in the overall incidence of DGE (P = 0.98), passage of the contrast medium through the anastomosis (P = 0.55), or hospital stays (P = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

CS duodenojejunostomy is not inferior to HS anastomosis with respect to the incidence of clinically significant DGE, justifying its use as treatment option.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is a novel minimally invasive surgery technique, and its effectiveness and safety remain unknown in patients with borderline malignant or malignant diseases. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RLPD versus open PD (OPD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2013, 180 eligible patients were prospectively hospitalized for elective RLPD (n = 60) or OPD (n = 120). They were matched for tumor location, tumor type, tumor size, ASA classification, age, and sex. The main outcome measures included demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative recovery, and mid-term evaluation.

RESULTS

Over the study period, the RLPD group had a significantly longer but decreasing operative time (median 410 vs. 323 min; P < 0.001), less blood loss (median 400 vs. 500 mL; P = 0.005), better nutritional status recovery, expedited off-bed return to activity (3.2 vs. 4.8 d; P < 0.001), faster resumption of bowel movement (3.6 vs. 5.2 d; P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (20 vs. 25 d; P = 0.002) compared to the OPD group. The two groups had similar surgical morbidities and mortality as well as R0 resection rate and number of lymph nodes resected. Among patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the two groups had similar overall and disease-free survival (ACTRN12614000299606).

CONCLUSIONS

This first largest, prospective matched study demonstrated that for treating selected borderline and malignant pathologies, RLPD was associated with a significant learning curve effect and expedited postoperative recovery, but had a surgical and oncological safety profile similar to OPD.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Resection of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), because it is associated with increased survival. Minimally invasive procedures are a safe modality for the surgical treatment of PNETs. In malignant PNETs, laparoscopy is not associated with a compromise in terms of oncologic resection, and provides the benefits of decreased postoperative pain, better cosmetic results, shorter hospital stay, and a shorter postoperative recovery period. Further prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are required for the analysis of these minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of PNETs and their comparison with traditional open pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic Pylorus- and Spleen-Preserving Duodenopancreatectomy for a Multifocal Neuroendocrine Tumor

Background

In contrast to laparoscopic left pancreatic resection, laparoscopic total duodenopancreatectomy is a procedure that has not been standardized until now. It is not only the complexity that limits such a procedure but also its rare indication. The following article demonstrates the technical aspects of laparoscopic pylorus- and spleen-preserving duodenopancreatectomy.

Case Report

The indication for intervention in the underlying case was a patient diagnosed with a multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) I syndrome and a multifocal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) infiltrating the duodenum and the pancreas. The patient was post median laparotomy which was necessary after jejunal perforation due to a peptic ulcer. The resection was carried out entirely laparoscopically, and the reconstruction, which included a biliodigestive anastomosis and a gastroenterostomy, was carried out by means of a median upper abdomen laparotomy of 7 cm in length through which the resected specimen was also removed. The total operative time was 391 min. The blood loss accounted for 250 ml. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the eighth postoperative day.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy is a treatment option in carefully selected indications. The complexity of the operation demands a high level of expertise in the surgical team.

Pure laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with initial approach to the superior mesenteric artery

INTRODUCTION

The "artery-first approach" (AFA) to the superior mesenteric artery allows an early assessment of resectability of pancreatic tumours and could improve the benefits of laparoscopy, reducing invasiveness, especially for unresectable tumours.

AIM

To describe our technique of pure laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (PLPD) with the AFA, and to report the surgical outcomes of this procedure in a small series of 12 patients through a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve selected patients underwent elective full laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with the AFA. The technical aspects of the procedure are described in detail and the included images facilitate the understanding of the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 300 min (range: 250-540 min). No intraoperative complications were observed. No conversion to laparotomy was necessary. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 18 days (range: 8-42). Mortality was null. There were 3 major complications at the 3rd post-operative month follow-up: 2 patients reporting a grade A pancreatic fistula and one biliary fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work shows that pure laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (PLPD) with the AFA is feasible, in selected patients. The AFA could improve on the advantages of laparoscopy in the identification of unresectable patients, and it also allows early control of vascular structures.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: How far have we come and where are we headed?

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is currently a feasible option in selected patients at high volume centers with available expertise. Although the procedure has been described two decades ago, laparoscopic surgeons have been reluctant to perform it since it is technically demanding. Currently there is no standardized training process for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy and this is required to ensure the safety of the procedure. Even the open pancreatoduodenectomy can be a challenging procedure where the outcome depends much upon the patient volume and surgeon’s experience. In the minimally invasive setting, all the current evidence comes from retrospective data with inherent selection bias. Although the proposed benefits have been reported in many series, a randomized trial comparing with the open approach is highly unlikely to happen, given the complexity of pancreatic cancer and patient selection for complex surgery. Rather, in a disease for which cure is an utopian statement, perhaps the ultimate aim of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be the improvement in the quality of life. Also further studies are needed to assess the immunologic role affecting the oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The robotic platforms have got easily accepted since they can overcome some of the limitations of the laparoscopic platforms such as limited range of motion, two dimensional visualization and poor ergonomics. The main limitations of robotic procedures are related to the high costs associated with the system and disposable equipment. Currently evidence is lacking regarding the cost effectiveness of the procedure and also the push from the industry is on rise. All these minimally invasive techniques have a long learning curve and prior extensive experience in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is mandatory for surgeons embarking on these endeavours.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has found new avenues for performing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) procedures, a historically technically challenging operation. Multiple studies have found laparoscopic PD to be safe, with equivalent oncologic outcomes as compared to open PD. In addition, several series have described potential benefits to minimally invasive PD including fewer postoperative complications, shorter hospital length of stay, and decreased postoperative pain. Yet, despite these promising initial results, laparoscopic PDs have not become widely adopted by the surgical community. In fact, the vast majority of pancreatic resections performed in the United States are still performed in an open fashion, and there are only a handful of surgeons who actually perform purely laparoscopic PDs. On the other hand, robotic assisted surgery offers many technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery including high-definition, 3-D optics, enhanced suturing ability, and more degrees of freedom of movement by means of fully-wristed instruments. Similar to laparoscopic PD, there are now several case series that have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic PD with seemingly equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes as compared to open technique. In addition, having the surgeon seated for the procedure with padded arm-rests, there is an ergonomic advantage of robotics over both open and laparoscopic approaches, where one has to stand up for prolonged periods of time. Future technologic innovations will likely focus on enhanced robotic capabilities to improve ease of use in the operating room. Last but not least, robotic assisted surgery training will continue to be a part of surgical education curriculum ensuring the increased use of this technology by future generations of surgeons.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Did the indications change? A review from literature

Pancreatic Cancer (PC) is the fourth cause of death for tumors in Western countries. Symptoms are not specific, and can vary according to the tumor size and place. Diagnostic workup includes CA 19-9, CT and MRI. Surgery is the only treatment for PC, associated to radio-chemo therapy. Laparoscopic approaches are actually used for PC treatment in few specialized centers, and could be an alternative to laparotomic surgery. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopy for PC treatment compared to laparotomy. We reviewed 19 articles in literature to assess the feasibility and efficacy of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LDP) and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The results have shown that LDP is nowadays a safe technique, and the outcomes are comparable to laparotomic surgery. Regarding to LPD instead, results are controversial and the data are still not sufficient to consider this technique as a valid alternative to laparotomic surgery.

Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) during the initial learning curve with open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of outcome and costs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the consecutive patients who underwent TLPD between December 2009 and April 2014 at our institution. The experiences of the initial 15 consecutive TLPD cases, considered as the initial learning curve of each surgeon, were compared with the same number of consecutive laparotomy cases with the same spectrum of diseases in terms of outcome and costs. Laparoscopic patients with conversion to open surgery were excluded. Preoperative demographic and comorbidity data were obtained. Postoperative data on intestinal movement, pain score, mortality, complications, and costs were obtained for analysis. Complications related to surgery included pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary leak, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. The total costs consisted of cost of surgery, anesthesia, and admission examination.

RESULTS: A total of 60 patients, including 30 consecutive laparoscopic cases and 30 consecutive open cases, were enrolled for review. Demographic and comorbidity characteristics of the two groups were similar. TLPD required a significantly longer operative time (513.17 ± 56.13 min vs 371.67 ± 85.53 min, P < 0.001). The TLPD group had significantly fewer mean numbers of days until bowel sounds returned (2.03 ± 0.55 d vs 3.83 ± 0.59 d, P < 0.001) and exhaustion (4.17 ± 0.75 d vs 5.37 ± 0.81 d, P < 0.001). The mean visual analogue score on postoperative day 4 was less in the TLPD group (3.5 ± 9.7 vs 4.47 ± 1.11, P < 0.05). No differences in surgery-related morbidities and mortality were observed between the two groups. Patients in the TLPD group recovered more quickly and required a shorter hospital stay after surgery (9.97 ± 3.74 d vs 11.87 ± 4.72 d, P < 0.05). A significant difference in the total cost was found between the two groups (TLPD 81317.43 ± 2027.60 RMB vs laparotomy 78433.23 ± 5788.12 RMB, P < 0.05). TLPD had a statistically higher cost for both surgery (24732.13 ± 929.28 RMB vs 19317.53 ± 795.94 RMB, P < 0.001) and anesthesia (6192.37 ± 272.77 RMB vs 5184.10 ± 146.93 RMB, P < 0.001), but a reduced cost for admission examination (50392.93 ± 1761.22 RMB vs 53931.60 ± 5556.94 RMB, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: TLPD is safe when performed by experienced pancreatobiliary surgeons during the initial learning curve, but has a higher cost than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery

More than a decade has passed since robotic technology was adopted for abdominal surgery, and virtually every gastrointestinal operation has since been shown to be feasible, safe, and reproducible using the robotic approach. Robotic pancreatic surgery had been left behind at the beginning, because they were technically challenging, requiring not only being very familiar with the robotic technology but also having a perfect knowledge of the anatomical variations, very frequent in this area. Nonetheless in the last few years many authors have approached the robot for pancreatic surgery with very promising results in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. The aim of this article is to review the literature on robotic pancreatic surgery and to define the state of the art use of the robotic approach for pancreatic disease.