Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: Our technique and long-term results in 14 patients

Mapping global new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to determine the global prevalence of new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to October, 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Logit transformation was used. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis were employed to investigate determinants of the prevalence of new-onset diabetes.

RESULTS

A total of 82 studies involving 13 257 patients were included. The overall prevalence of new-onset diabetes after partial pancreatectomy was 17.1%. Univariate meta-regression indicated that study size was the cause of heterogeneity. Multivariable analysis suggested that income of country or area had the highest predictor importance (49.7%). For subgroup analysis, the prevalence of new-onset diabetes varied from 7.6% (France, 95% CI: 4.3-13.0) to 38.0% (UK, 95% CI: 28.2-48.8, P <0.01) across different countries. Patients with surgical indications for chronic pancreatitis exhibited a higher prevalence (30.7%, 95% CI: 21.8-41.3) than those with pancreatic lesions (16.4%, 95% CI: 14.3-18.7, P <0.01). The type of surgical procedure also influenced the prevalence, with distal pancreatectomy having the highest prevalence (23.7%, 95% CI: 22.2-25.3, P <0.01). Moreover, the prevalence of worsening and resolution of preoperative diabetes was 41.1 and 25.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative diabetes has a relatively high prevalence in patients undergoing partial pancreatectomy, which calls for attention and dedicated action from primary care physicians, specialists, and health policy makers alike.

Is central pancreatectomy an effective alternative to distal pancreatectomy for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors: A 20-year single-center propensity score-matched case-control study

Backgrounds/Aims

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is associated with a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and it is less preferred over distal pancreatectomy (DP). We compared the short- and long-term outcomes between CP and DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors.

Methods

This was a propensity score-matched case-control study of patients who underwent either CP or DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors from 2003 to 2020 in a tertiary care unit in southern India. Patients with a tumor >10 cm or a distal residual stump length of < 4 cm were excluded. Demographics, clinical profile, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the long-term postoperative outcomes for exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, weight gain, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire were compared.

Results

Eighty-eight patients (CP: n=37 [cases], DP: n=51 [control]) were included in the unmatched group after excluding 21 patients (meeting exclusion criteria). After matching, both groups had 37 patients. The clinical and demographic profiles were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss and POPF rates were significantly higher in the CP group. However, Clavien-Dindo grades of complications were similar between the two groups (p = 0.27). At a median follow-up of 38 months (range = 187 months), exocrine sufficiency was similar between the two groups. Endocrine sufficiency, weight gain, SF-36 pain control score, and general health score were significantly better in the CP group.

Conclusions

Despite equivalent clinically significant morbidities, long-term outcomes are better after CP compared to DP in low-grade pancreatic body tumors.

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP).

METHODS

Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM.

CONCLUSION

LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Systematic Review and Optimal Management Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence and diagnosis of EPI after pancreatectomy has not been fully understood and optimized. The aim of this study was to present incidence and diagnostic criteria for EPI after pancreatectomy for cancer and provide a guide for management and optimal therapy in pancreatectomy patients with cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature with publication dates from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A comprehensive diagnostic and treatment algorithm was then created based on literature review and current treatment options.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies were included, 19 combined both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), 9 for central pancreatectomy, and 2 others. EPI was defined subjectively without definitive testing using any of the established diagnostic studies in the majority of studies 23 (76%). Preoperative EPI was calculated to be 11.52%. Most studies assessed exocrine function at least 6 months postoperatively with four studies extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months. EPI diagnosed postoperatively at 1 month (40.27%), 3 months (30.94%), 6 months (36.06%), and 12 months (34.69%). After PD, the median prevalence of postoperative EPI was 43.14%, CP, the median prevalence was 4.85%, DP, median prevalence of postoperative EPI of 11.94%.

CONCLUSION

EPI is a frequent outcome that is often misdiagnosed or under-reported by the patient post-pancreatectomy. Given the increasing overall survival in pancreatectomy patients for cancer, surgeon awareness and assessment is critical to improving patients' overall quality of life.

Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries: A single institution experience with 150 consecutive procedures in Southeast Asia

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries (MIPS) are increasingly adopted worldwide. However, it remains uncertain if these reported experiences are reproducible throughout the world today. This study examines the safety and evolution of MIPS at a single institution in Southeast Asia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 150 consecutive patients who underwent MIPS between 2006 and 2018 of which 135 cases (90%) were performed since 2012. To determine the evolution of MIPS, the study population was stratified into 3 equal groups of 50 patients. Comparison was also made between pancreatoduodenectomies (PD), distal pancreatectomies (DP) and other pancreatic surgeries.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients underwent MIPS (103 laparoscopic, 45 robotic and 2 hand-assisted). Forty-three patients underwent PD, 93 DP and 14 other MIPS. There were 21 (14.0%) open conversions. There was an exponential increase in caseload over the study period. Comparison across the 3 time periods demonstrated that patients were significantly more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, older, undergo PD and a longer operation time. The conversion rate decreased from 28% to 0% and increased again to 14% across the 3 time periods. Comparison between the various types of MIPS demonstrated that patients who underwent PD were significantly older, more likely to have symptomatic tumours, had longer surgery time, increased blood loss, increased frequency of extended pancreatectomies, increased frequency of hybrid procedures, longer post-operative stay, increased post-operative morbidity rate and increased post-operative major morbidity rate.

CONCLUSION

The case volume of MIPS increased rapidly at our institution over the study period. Furthermore, although the indications for MIPS expanded to include more complex procedures in higher risk patients, there was no change in key perioperative outcomes.

The role of central pancreatectomy in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

A systematic literature research in PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library was performed to identify articles reporting CP from January 1983 to November 2017.

RESULTS

Fifty studies with 1305 patients undergoing CP were identified. The overall morbidity, mortality, pancreatic fistula (PF) rate and reoperation rate was 51%, 0.5%, 35% and 4% respectively. Endocrine and exocrine insufficiency were occurred in 4% and 5% of patients after CP. Meta-analysis of CP versus DP favored CP with regard to less blood loss (WMD = -143.4, P = 0.001), lower rates of endocrine (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.38, P < 0.001). CP was associated with higher morbidity and PF rate. In comparison with PD, CP had a lower risk of endocrine (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001), but a higher PF rate (OR = 1.6, P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

CP maintains pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function better than DP and PD, but is associated with a higher PF rate.

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 management of solid pseudo papillary neoplasm of pancreas in tertiary care center from south India

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudo papillary neoplasm (SPN) of the pancreas which predominantly affects young women is a relatively indolent entity with favorable prognosis. Resection through minimal access approach helps to achieve better short term benefits. The aim of this study is to describe our experience in laparoscopic management of this disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database revealed that 17 patients with SPN were managed with surgical resection between March 2009 and October 2016. The clinical data of these patients were then analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 17 cases of SPN, 14 were females and 3 were males. The mean age at presentation was 26.1 years (11-46 years). The most common presenting symptom was an abdominal pain (n = 10; 58.8%). A tumor was incidentally detected in 5 patients. The neoplasm was localized in the pancreatic head/neck in 6 patients and in the body/tail in 11. The median diameter of the tumors was 7.5 cm (2-13 cm). Five patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 10 had distal pancreatectomy, while median pancreatectomy or enucleation was performed in one each. All the patients were offered laparoscopic surgery; one distal pancreatectomy was converted to open in view of bleeding. The median length of stay was 7 days (5-28 days). The patients were followed up for a median period of 31 months (3-62 months).

CONCLUSION

SPN is a rare neoplasm with low malignant potential and has an excellent prognosis. In our experience, laparoscopic surgical resection is safe and feasible, even for larger lesions.

Robotic central pancreatectomy

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing procedure that can be utilized in the resection of tumors of the neck or the proximal body of the pancreas. Among 872 open CP reported since 1993, the mean rate of morbidity was 43.2% and mean rate of mortality was 0.24%. The mean pancreatic fistula rate was 28%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 19%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 2% and the average incidence of exocrine insufficiency experienced by patients undergoing open CP was 4.4%. Also, the mean length of hospital stay was around 15 days. In comparison, a total of 100 patients underwent either laparoscopic or robotic CP with a mean rate of morbidity of 37.3% and mean rate of mortality of 0%. Also, the mean rate of development of pancreatic fistula was 36.6%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 17%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 1.5%. None of the patients included in these series developed any postoperative exocrine insufficiency. The mean length of hospital stay was around 13 days. Standard procedures such as DP and PD are associated with lower rates of short-term morbidity such as pancreatic fistula development but are also accompanied with a higher rate of long-term endocrine and exocrine insufficiency due to the significant loss of normal pancreatic parenchyma when compared to CP. It can be inferred, albeit from limited and small retrospective studies and case reports, that conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to CP are safe and feasible in highly specialized centers.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology.

METHODS

After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts.

RESULTS

A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Robot-Assisted Middle Pancreatectomy for Elderly Patients: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, safety, feasibility, and short- and long-term outcomes for elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies (MPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten patients (≥60 years) underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies from 2012 to 2015. The perioperative data, including tumor size, operating time, rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postoperative morbidity, and other parameters, were analyzed. We collected and analyzed the follow-up information.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64.30 years (range, 60-73 years). The average tumor size was 2.61 cm. The 10 cases were all benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The mean operating time was 175.00 min. The mean blood loss was 113.00 ml with no blood transfusion needed. Postoperative fistulas developed in 5 patients; there were 2 Grade A fistulas and 3 grade B fistulas. There were 3 patients who underwent postoperative complications, including 2 Grade 1 or 2 complications and 1 Grade 3 complication. No reoperation and postoperative mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 19.91 days. After a median follow-up of 23 months, new onset of diabetes mellitus developed in 1 patient and none suffered from deterioration of previously diagnosed diabetes or exocrine insufficiency, and no tumor recurrence happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy was safe and feasible for elderly people. It had low risk of exocrine or endocrine dysfunction and benefited patients' long-term outcomes. Incidence of POPF was relatively high but we could prevent it from resulting in bad outcomes by scientific perioperative care and systemic treatment.