The effectiveness, risks and improvement of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

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.

First assistant experience in total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: accelerating the learning curve for an operator

OBJECTIVE

Compare and analyze clinical data of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) cases for surgeons with / without first assistant experience (FAE) in TLPD. Probe influence of FAE in TLPD on the learning curve for an operator.

METHODS

The clinical data of 239 patients, that underwent TLPD performed by two surgeons between January 2017 and January 2022) in our department, were consecutively collected and divided into two groups (A and B). Group A cases were operated by Surgeon A, with FAE of 57 TLPDs in our department prior to initial TLPD as an operator. Group B cases were operated by Surgeon B with no FAE of TLPD. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) method developed learning curves. Clinical data and both surgeons' learning curves were statistically compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Between both groups, no statistically significant variations were observed for pre-operative health conditions. Reduced surgical duration, blood loss and transfusion volume during surgery, together with reductions in major post-operative complication rates and reduced hospital/ICU stays were identified within Group A, having statistically significant variations. The technical plateau phases of the learning curves were approximately 25-41 cases and 35-51 cases, for Surgeon A and Surgeon B, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FAE in TLPD can accelerate the learning curve of TLPD for an operator, with safer surgical procedures and enhanced post-operative recovery.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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.

Nomogram based on albumin and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for predicting postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to identify a preoperative inflammatory marker with the most predictive value for postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We then combined it with other perioperative variables to construct and validate a nomogram for complications after PD.

Methods

A total of 223 patients who received PD from January 2014 to July 2019 at a high-volume (>60 PDs/year) pancreatic centers in China were included in this retrospective study. All of the PDs were performed by the same surgeon who is beyond the learning curve with more than 100 PDs over the previous 3 years before 2014. 15 preoperative inflammatory markers were collected, including neutrophils, lymphocytes, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lactic dehydrogenase. The inflammatory markers' predicting abilities for complications were analyzed by calculating the values of an area under the curve (AUC). The complications included surgical complications (such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage) and medical complications (such as sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, acute heart failure and acute liver failure) in this study. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the perioperative features for independent risk factors for complications after PD. Nomograms with or without the most predictive inflammatory for complications were subsequently developed based on multivariable logistic regression using Akaike information criterion. Nomograms' performance was quantified and compared in terms of calibration and discrimination. We studied the utility of the nomograms using decision curve analysis.

Results

The albumin/ NLR score (ANS) exhibited the highest AUC value (0.616) for predicting postoperative complications. ANS and approach method were identified as independent risk factors for complications. The nomogram with ANS had higher C-index (0.725) and better calibration. The NRI compared between nomograms was 0.160 (95% CI: 0.023-0.296; P=0.022). By decision curve analysis, the model with ANS had higher clinical value.

Conclusions

The ANS is a useful predictor and an independent risk factor for postoperative complications after PD. The nomogram with ANS was constructed with better performance and more clinical benefit for predicting postoperative complications.

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

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