Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Cross-sectional imaging after pancreatic surgery: The dialogue between the radiologist and the surgeon

Pancreatic surgery is nowadays considered one of the most complex surgical approaches and not unscathed from complications. After the surgical procedure, cross-sectional imaging is considered the non-invasive reference standard to detect early and late compilations, and consequently to address patients to the best management possible. Contras-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) should be considered the most important and useful imaging technique to evaluate the surgical site. Thanks to its speed, contrast, and spatial resolution, it can help reach the final diagnosis with high accuracy. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered as a second-line imaging approach, especially for the evaluation of biliary findings and late complications. In both cases, the radiologist should be aware of protocols and what to look at, to create a robust dialogue with the surgeon and outline a fitted treatment for each patient.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Preliminary experience with a new robotic technique to facilitate distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation: left lateral approach in right lateral decubitus position

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SP-DP), for patients with benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the body or tail of the pancreas, is the ideal procedure although it is technically demanding. The robotic da Vinci system has been introduced to overcome these technical challenges and reduce operative risks. We report our experience of a new variation in surgical technique: the left lateral approach robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP-DP) in right lateral decubitus position. We performed this new variant of SP-DP, in five patients, using the da Vinci Xi system. Technical and clinical feasibility are described. The mean age and body mass index were 53.4 years and 31.4 kg/m2, respectively. The mean total operative time was 323 min. The estimated mean blood loss was 240 ml. In all patients, the spleen could be preserved. In four patients, the splenic vessels were also preserved. One patient required a Warshaw technique due to significant fibrosis attached to the splenic vein. The postoperative period of all patients was uneventful except the presence of biochemical leak (BL) in two patients that only required maintenance of the drainage at home. The mean length of hospital stay was 6 days after surgery. The left lateral approach robotic SP-DP in right lateral decubitus position is a feasible and safe procedure for distal benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the left pancreas. The right lateral decubitus position associated to robotic surgery can facilitate this complex procedure, especially when splenic vessels preservation is indicated, with a lower risk of conversion and shortening of the learning curve.

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.

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using the AEON™ endovascular stapler

Background

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of using a new innovative endovascular stapler, AEON™, on the pancreatic leak rates and other outcome measures.

Methods

In a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a secure tertiary unit registry, patients undergoing distal or lateral pancreatectomy were analyzed for any differences on pancreatic fistula rates, length of stay, comprehensive complication index (CCI), and demographics after using AEON™ compared with other commonly used staplers. Statistical significance was defined as <0.05.

Results

There were no differences in the demographics between the two groups totaling 58 patients over 2 years from 2019 to 2021. A total of 43 and 15 patients underwent pancreatic transection using other staplers and AEON™ endovascular stapler, respectively. The comparison of the two groups revealed a significantly reduced rate of mean drain lipase at postoperative day 3 with AEON™ (446 U/L) versus the other staplers (4,208 U/L) (p = 0.018) and a subsequent reduction of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) from 65% to 20%. A reduction in the mean CCI, from 13.80 when other staplers were used to 4.97 when AEON™ was used, was also observed (p = 0.087). Mean length of stay was shorter by 3 days in the AEON™ group compared with that in the other staplers (6 and 9 days, respectively; p = 0.018).

Conclusion

AEON™ stapler when used to transect the pancreas demonstrated a significantly reduced pancreatic fistula rate, length of stay in hospital, and a leaning towards a reduced CCI. Its use should be further evaluated in larger cohorts with the encouraging results to determine whether this is possibly related to the technology used in the design of the AEON™ stapler.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomies for borderline tumors with major venous resections

Introduction

Resection of the portal vein or superior mesenteric vein infiltrated by the pancreatic cancer is currently a standard during open pancreatic surgery for cancer. When found intraoperatively it often leads to conversion. Nowadays, research data for laparoscopic pancreatectomies with major venous resections and reconstructions are scarce.

Aim

To present our own results of laparoscopic total pancreatectomies, pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomies (RAMPS) performed for cancer with major venous resection and reconstructions of the portal system.

Material and methods

This is a retrospective study of our own clinical material of consecutive patients treated for adenocarcinoma of pancreas who underwent laparoscopic pancreatectomies with major venous resection and reconstruction in 2020 and 2021.

Results

The study included 6 females and 2 males in median age of 68 years (56-77). 6 tumors were located in the pancreatic head, 1 in the pancreatic neck and 1 in the pancreatic body. Surgical procedures included 5 total pancreatectomies, 2 RAMPS and 1 Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy. There were no conversions. Median time of vascular closure was 55.5 (41-70) min. Median blood loss was 500 (250-900) ml. Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 18.5 (11-34) days. We observed no complications related directly to vascular resection.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic approach for pancreatectomies with portal or superior mesenteric vein resections could be a safe and feasible approach in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

Considerations in laparoscopic resection of giant pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Background:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with (LDPS) or without splenectomy for cystic tumours in the body and tail has become the standard of care. Data on patients with large tumours of the body and tail of the pancreas are sparse.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who were managed with laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cystic neoplasm since 2010 was done. Patients with cysts more than 8 cm were analysed. Clinical presentation, imaging, details of the surgical procedure and the outcomes were looked into.

Results:

Five patients of giant pancreatic cystic neoplasm (GPCN) were managed with LDPS. Four patients were female, mean age was 45 years (range 15–69 years). The mean cyst size was 11.2 cms (range 8–15 cm). The splenic vein was either stretched or thrombosed in all patients. Three patients had sinistral portal hypertension. All patients were operated with a modified five-port placement. None of the patients required conversion. Mean operative duration was 3½ h, blood loss was 80 ml approximately and none required a blood transfusion. One patient had a biochemical leak. All patients were discharged from the hospital by 3^rd postoperative day. Drain removal was done before discharge except in the patient with biochemical leak (removed on day 6). On a median follow-up of 89 months (range 1–120 months), two patients developed diabetes. There has been no Overwhelming post-splenectomy infections (OPSI).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible in patients with GPCN and offers the all the short-term benefits, namely lesser pain, no wound infections, early return of bowel activity, early return to orals and early discharge and early return to work. Splenectomy was required in all patients because of splenic vein thrombosis and portal hypertension in three and for technical reasons in the rest.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III).

RESULTS

218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III.

CONCLUSION

LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

Central pancreatectomy: a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers.

METHODS

A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.