Resection of a cholangiocarcinoma via laparoscopic hepatopancreato- duodenectomy: A case report

Laparoscopic hepatopancreatoduodenectomy for synchronous intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A case report

Laparoscopic hepatopancreatoduodenectomy (LHPD) is a complex surgical procedure with high rates of complications and mortality and is performed in a limited number of medical centers. The present study reports a case of a synchronous primary malignant tumor of the left hepatic common bile ducts. A 63-year-old male was admitted to Affiliated Jinhua Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine (Jinhua, China) with a 1 week history of right upper abdominal distension and pain associated with yellow sclera. Preoperative CT and MRI imaging demonstrated a synchronous primary malignant tumor of the left hepatic and common bile ducts; therefore, laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy were performed. There was no biliary or pancreatic leakage following the operation and the patient was discharged 16 days later. Postoperative pathology verified that the synchronous primary cholangiocarcinoma originated in the left hepatic and common bile ducts. Therefore, LHPD for synchronous primary cholangiocarcinoma may be a safe and feasible treatment for this condition.

Current status and progress in laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder carcinoma

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary tract malignancy associated with a concealed onset, high invasiveness and poor prognosis. Radical surgery remains the only curative treatment for GBC, and the optimal extent of surgery depends on the tumor stage. Radical resection can be achieved by simple cholecystectomy for Tis and T1a GBC. However, whether simple cholecystectomy or extended cholecystectomy, including regional lymph node dissection and hepatectomy, is the standard surgical extent for T1b GBC remains controversial. Extended cholecystectomy should be performed for T2 and some T3 GBC without distant metastasis. Secondary radical surgery is essential for incidental gall-bladder cancer diagnosed after cholecystectomy. For locally advanced GBC, hepatopancreatoduodenectomy may achieve R0 resection and improve long-term survival outcomes, but the extremely high risk of the surgery limits its implementation. Laparoscopic surgery has been widely used in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. GBC was once regarded as a contraindication of laparoscopic surgery. However, with improvements in surgical instruments and skills, studies have shown that laparoscopic surgery will not result in a poorer prognosis for selected patients with GBC compared with open surgery. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery is associated with enhanced recovery after surgery since it is minimally invasive.

Laparoscopic hepatopancreaticoduodenectomy for synchronous gallbladder cancer and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a case report

Background

Hepatopancreaticoduodenectomy (HPD) is one of the most complex procedures, and it is very rarely reported. Laparoscopic HPD (LHPD) is even rarer. To date, there are only 3 reports of LHPD for locally advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). This is the first report of LHPD for synchronous GBC and ECC.

Case presentation

A 75-year-old female patient complained of jaundice for 2 weeks without fever or abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with synchronous GBC and ECC. After a comprehensive preparation, she underwent a laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and resection of hepatic segments of IVb and V, and her digestive tract reconstruction followed Child’s methods. She was discharged on the 12th day postoperatively without pancreatic leakage, biliary leakage, or liver failure.

Conclusions

LHPD is safe and feasible for selected cases of GBCs or ECCs.

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

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

The role of minimally invasive hepatectomy for hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review of the literature

Despite the fact laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for cholangiocarcinoma is still limited, this systematic review addressed surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR to treat both perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Five comparative and 20 noncomparative studies were found. Regarding iCCA, LLR had lower blood loss and less need for Pringle maneuver. However, open liver resections (OLR) were performed more for major hepatectomies, with better lymphadenectomy rates and higher number of harvested lymph nodes. High heterogeneity and selection bias were suggested for iCCA studies.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is the second most common type of primary liver cancer after hepatocellular carcinoma. Surgical resection is considered the only curative treatment for CC. In general, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) is associated with improved short-term outcomes without compromising the long-term oncological outcome. However, the role of LLS in the treatment of CC is not yet well established. In addition, CC may arise in any tract of the biliary tree, thus requiring different types of treatment, including pancreatectomies and extrahepatic bile duct resections. This review presents and discusses the state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of all types of CC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with laparoscopic or robotic surgery and cholangiocarcinoma. Laparoscopic resection in patients with intrahepatic CC (ICC) is feasible and safe. Regarding oncologic adequacy, as R0 resections, depth of margins, and long-term overall and disease-free survival, laparoscopy is comparable to open procedures for ICC. An adequate patient selection is required to obtain optimal results. Use of laparoscopy in perihilar CC (PHC) has not gained popularity. Further studies are still needed to confirm the benefit of this approach over conventional surgery for PHC. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal CC (DCC) represents one of the most advanced abdominal operations owing to the necessity of a complex dissection and reconstruction and has also had small widespread so far. Minimally invasive surgery seems feasible and safe especially for ICC. Laparoscopy for PHC is technically challenging notably for the caudate lobectomy. Not least as for the LLR, the robotic approach for DCC appears technically achievable in selected patients.

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy: A single-center 7-year experience

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS: A retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients who underwent LTG with the same surgical team between November 2007 and July 2014 was performed. Four types of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using staplers or hand-sewn suturing were performed after LTG. Data on clinicopatholgoical characteristics, occurrence of complications, postoperative recovery, anastomotic time, and operation time among the surgical groups were obtained through medical records.

RESULTS: The average operation time was 288.7 min, the average anastomotic time was 54.3 min, and the average estimated blood loss was 82.7 mL. There were no cases of conversion to open surgery. The first flatus was observed around 3.7 d, while the liquid diet was started, on average, from 4.9 d. The average postoperative hospital stay was 10.1 d. Postoperative complications occurred in 14 patients, nearly 17.3%. However, there were no cases of postoperative death.

CONCLUSION: LTG performed with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using laparoscopic staplers or hand-sewn suturing is feasible and safe. The surgical results were acceptable from the perspective of minimal invasiveness.

LDP vs ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case matched study from a single-institution

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) showed advantage of perioperation outcomes for benign and low-grade tumor of the pancreas. The application of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) didn’t gain popular acceptance and the number of LDP for PDAC remains low. We designed a case-matched study to analysis the short- and long-term outcomes of the patients undergoing either Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy for PDAC.

Method

From 2003 to 2013, 17 patients were underwent LDP and 34 patients were underwent ODP for PDAC were matched by tumor size, age and body mass index (BMI). The two groups’ demographic information, perioperative outcomes and survival data were compared.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the LDP and ODP groups. The intraoperative blood loss, first flatus, first oral intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly less in LDP group than ODP group (50 ml vs400ml, P = 0.000; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.001; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.003; 13d vs 15.5d, P = 0.022). The mean operation time, overall postoperative morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates were similar in the two groups. 5 patients (29.4 %) in LDP group and 7 patients (20.6 %) in ODP group underwent extended resections. There were no significant differences in tumor sizes (3.5 cm vs 3.9 cm, P = 0.664) and number of harvested lymph nodes (9 vs8 P = 0.534). The median overall survival for both groups was 14.0 months. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed extended resections, R1 resection, perineural invasion and tumor differentiation were associated with worse survival.

Conclusion

LDP is technically feasible and safe for PDAC in selected patients and the short-term oncologic outcomes were not inferior to ODP in this small sample study. However the long-term oncologic safety of LDP for PDAC has to be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.