Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015;10:141-149. [PMID: 26240612 DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2015.52705]

Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), when selectively utilized, has been shown to hasten recovery with outcomes comparable to open approaches, but access may not be equitable. This study explored variation in utilization of MIPS for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with a primary pancreatic neoplasm from 2010 to 2020. Study participants had diagnoses of clinical or pathologic stage 1-3 disease and received curative-intent surgery. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between surgical approach and patient and disease factors.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 73,137 patients: 51,408 underwent open surgery and 21,729 received MIPS. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was associated with reduced odds of MIPS (AOR 0.88; p = 0.02), while older age (AOR 1.17; p = 0.01), later year of diagnosis (AOR 1.57; p < 0.001), and private insurance coverage (AOR 1.30; p = 0.05) were associated with increased odds. When patients with adenocarcinoma were analyzed in isolation, disparities in MIPS utilization persisted even when controlling for disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors like age, race, and insurance coverage appear to vary in the utilization of MIPS technologies for the treatment of pancreatic malignancy. Addressing variation with robust mixed methods approaches in the future is proposed to incorporate prospective interventions with highly annotated outcomes for additional study.

The Implications of Readmission on Cost and Patient Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted.

DISCUSSION

Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Surgical Perspectives of Open vs. Laparoscopic Approaches to Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy: A Comprehensive Review

Pancreaticojejunostomy, a critical step in pancreatic surgery, has significantly evolved surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques. This comprehensive review explores open surgery's historical success, advantages, and disadvantages, emphasizing surgeons' accrued experience and familiarity with this approach. However, heightened morbidity and prolonged recovery associated with open pancreaticojejunostomy underscore the need for a nuanced evaluation of alternatives. The advent of robotic-assisted surgery introduces a paradigm shift in pancreatic procedures. Enhanced dexterity, facilitated by wristed instruments, allows intricate suturing and precise tissue manipulation crucial in pancreatic surgery. Three-dimensional visualization augments surgeon perception, improving spatial orientation and anastomotic alignment. Moreover, the potential for a reduced learning curve may enhance accessibility, especially for surgeons transitioning from open techniques. Emerging technologies, including advanced imaging modalities and artificial intelligence, present promising avenues for refining both open and minimally invasive approaches. The ongoing pursuit of optimal outcomes mandates a judicious consideration of surgical techniques, incorporating technological advancements to navigate challenges and enhance patient care in pancreaticojejunostomy.

Distal pancreatectomy outcomes: Perspectives from a community-based teaching institution

Backgrounds/Aims

Distal pancreatic resections are intricate operations with potential for significant morbidity; there is controversy surrounding the appropriate setting regarding surgeon/hospital volume. We report our distal pancreatectomy experience from a community-based teaching hospital.

Methods

This study includes all patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions between June 2004 and October 2017. Both groups were compared for perioperative characteristics, parenchymal resection technique, and outcomes.

Results

138 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy during this time. The distribution of LDP and ODP was 68 and 70 respectively. Operative time (146 vs. 174 min), blood loss (139 vs. 395 ml) and mean length of stay (4.8 vs. 8.0 days) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The 30-day Clavien Grade 2/3 morbidity rate was 13.7% (19/138) and the incidence of Grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 6.5% (9/138), with no difference between ODP and LDP. 30-day mortality was 0.7% (1/138). 61/138 resections had a malignancy on final pathology. ODP mean tumor diameter was greater (6.4 cm vs. 2.9 cm), but there was no significant difference in the mean number of harvested nodes (8.6 vs. 7.4). The cost of hospitalization, including readmissions and surgery was significantly lower for LDP ($7558 vs. $11610).

Conclusions

This series of distal pancreatectomies indicates a shorter hospital stay, less operative blood loss and reduced cost in the LDP group, and comparable morbidity and oncologic outcomes between LDP and ODP. It highlights the feasibility and safety of these complex surgeries in a community setting.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon's experience of 228 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained popularity for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Robotic systems represent the most recent advancement in minimally invasive surgical treatment for such tumors. Theoretically, robotic systems are considered to have several advantages over laparoscopic systems. However, there have been few studies comparing both systems in the treatment of distal pancreatectomy. We compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two treatment modalities.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon at a high-volume center between January 2015 and December 2017.

RESULTS

The analysis included 228 consecutive patients (LDP, n = 182; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [R-LDP], n = 46). Operative time was significantly longer in the R-LDP group than in the LDP group (166.4 vs. 140.7 min; p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who underwent the spleen-preserving approach, the spleen preservation rate associated with R-LDP was significantly higher than that associated with LDP (96.8% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.02). In another subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer, there were no significant differences in median overall and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LDP is a safe and feasible approach with perioperative and oncological outcomes comparable to those of LDP. R-LDP offers an added technical advantage that enables the surgeon to perform a complex procedure with good ergonomic comfort.

The learning curve for a surgeon in robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a high-volume pancreatic center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most technically difficult abdominal operations. Recent advances have allowed surgeons to attempt PD using minimally invasive surgery techniques. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon who had carried out his first 100 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a high-volume pancreatic center.

METHODS

The data on consecutive patients who underwent RPD for malignant or benign pathologies were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The data included the demographic data, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of hospital stay, morbidity rate, mortality rate, and final pathological results. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to identify the inflexion points which corresponded to the learning curve.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients underwent RPD by a single surgeon. From the CUSUM operation time (CUSUM OT) learning curve, two distinct phases of the learning process were identified (early 40 patients and late 60 patients). The operation time (mean, 418 min vs. 317 min), hospital stay (mean, 22 days vs. 15 days), and estimated blood loss (mean, 227 ml vs. 134 ml) were significantly lower after the first 40 patients (P < 0.05). The pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, and reoperation rates also decreased in the late 60 patients group (P < 0.05). Non-significant reductions were observed in the incidences of major (Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher) morbidity, postoperative death, bile leakage, gastric fistula, wound infection, and open conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was technically feasible and safe in selected patients. The learning curve was completed after 40 RPD. Further studies are required to confirm the long-term oncological outcomes of RPD.

Recent Topics Around Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1

INTRODUCTION

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is complex with regard to clinical expressions, management, and molecular pathways. Advances are being made broadly and in focused aspects. Selected topics are presented for their developments since publication of the most recent MEN1 consensus guidelines 6 years ago.

METHODS

Topics were selected for clinical impact or broad interest or both. For each topic, information was obtained from original reports and reviews.

RESULTS

The selected topics are as follows: tumor behavior and breast cancer in MEN1; foregut neuroectoderm tumor screening, biomarkers periodically to detect tumor emergence of foregut neuroectoderm tumors, 68Ga dotatate positron emission tomography/computed tomography for pancreatic and duodenal neuroectodermal tumor imaging, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor scintigraphy for insulinoma; therapy, the size of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET) as one criterion for surgery, minimally invasive surgery of pancreatic NETs, and 177Lu dotatate therapy; MEN1 gene, the search for the MEN1/menin pathway and MEN1 or GCM2 mutation in familial isolated hyperparathyroidism, and MEN1 mutation-positive vs mutation-negative cases of MEN1 are different.

CONCLUSIONS

MEN1 topics are a rich and fast-moving area. Important highlights stand out, and major and rapid advances will continue into the near future.

Laparoscopic surgery in distal pancreatic tumors

Objective

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is increasingly being used in the surgical treatment of corpus and distal pancreatic tumors. In this study, patients who underwent laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant causes were evaluated in terms of tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from a total of 27 distal pancreatectomy cases performed for benign or malignant causes in the General Surgery Department between January 2013 and December 2015. Groups were compared according to the demographic characteristics of patients, operation type (laparoscopic or open, with splenectomy or spleen preservation), operation time, surgical site infection (superficial, deep wound infection, or intra-abdominal abscess), pancreatic fistula development, and histopathological examination results.

Results

Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and body mass index (p=0.42). Tumor diameter was similar (p=0.18). The total number of resected lymph nodes was similar in both groups (p=0.6). Pancreatic fistula developed in one patient in each group. Mean hospital stay duration and the amount of intraoperative bleeding were similar in both groups. The laparoscopy group had a markedly lower overall morbidity rate (p=0.08). There was no mortality observed in the study subjects.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be safely performed as a minimally invasive procedure in experienced centers and in selected cases without increasing perioperative complication rates, particularly in benign cases. Although oncological outcomes are acceptable for malignant cases, future prospective controlled studies are necessary for more reliable evaluation.

Laparoscopic distal resection of the pancreas. Can be all resections of body and tail of the pancreas called the same?

Introduction

Distal resection of the pancreas is a routine procedure in high-volume centres. However, the volume of this procedure can vary. This variation plays a very important role in laparoscopic approach of pancreatic surgery and can be a real challenge if the anatomical situation is underestimated.

Aim of the study

To present our experience in minimally invasive treatment of the pancreatic tumours and to discuss different approaches to different anatomical situations.

Material and methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients, who underwent laparoscopic pancreas resection for pancreatic cancer in our hospital since 2014 to 2016 February. According to extension of operation, patients were divided into two groups: distal pancreatectomy and left hemipancreatectomy for cases that required preparation of the portal vein. Demographic characteristics, and operative and postoperative data were compared between both groups.

Results

Out of 16 patients, distal pancreatectomy was performed for 7 (43.8%) and left hemipancreatectomy for 9 (56.2%) patients. For 1 (14.3%) laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and for 2 (22.2%) laparoscopic left hemipancreatectomy patients surgical conversion to laparotomy was performed. The average operation time was 205 (195–245) min for distal pancreatectomy and 412.5 (280–520) min for left hemipancreatectomy group (p = 0.001), blood loss 125 (20–250) ml and 250 (50–1800) ml accordingly (p = 0.138). Totally postoperative fistula occurred in 7 (43.8%) cases; out of them, 5 (71.4%) patients were from the left hemipancreatectomy group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic left hemipancreatectomy is more complicated than distal pancreatectomy. Extension and technique selection of distal resection of the pancreas depends on the Yonsei criteria and tumour relation to the portal vein.

Operative management of chronic pancreatitis: A review

BACKGROUND

Pain secondary to chronic pancreatitis is a difficult clinical problem to manage. Many patients are treated medically or undergo endoscopic therapy and surgical intervention is often reserved for those who have failed to gain adequate pain relief from a more conservative approach.

RESULTS

There have been a number of advances in the operative management of chronic pancreatitis over the last few decades and current therapies include drainage procedures (pancreaticojejunostomy, etc.), resection (pancreticoduodenectomy, etc.) and combined drainage/resection procedures (Frey procedure, etc.). Additionally, many centers currently perform total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation, in addition to minimally invasive options that are intended to tailor therapy to individual patients.

DISCUSSION

Operative management of chronic pancreatitis often improves quality of life, and is associated with low rates of morbidity and mortality. The decision as to which procedure is optimal for each patient should be based on a combination of pathologic changes, prior interventions, and individual surgeon and center experience.

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.

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.

METHODS

A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.

Staple-free robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy

Minimally invasive surgery has slowly gained popularity in the field of hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in the last few years. This is likely due to shorter length of stay, less estimated blood loss and postoperative pain, quicker recovery, and better cosmetic results. The laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with less overall morbidity and considered as the standard of care for selected patients. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) not only maintains the benefits of the laparoscopic approach, but also adds potential benefits. In this article, we describe the operative technique of an entirely staple-free RDP with splenectomy. The method is presented in a stepwise approach along with a concise video. The patient presented is a 58-year-old male with a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor involving the body of the pancreas; no major blood vessel involvement.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection-a review

Contrary to many other gastrointestinal operations, minimal access approaches in pancreatic surgery have gained ground slowly. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has gained wide acceptance. It is associated with reduced blood loss and shorter duration of stay (DOS) while oncologic results and morbidity are similar to open surgery. In recent years the number of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies has also increased. While oncological outcome seems comparable to the open approach, operative times are longer while DOS and blood loss are reduced. One added advantage of the laparoscopic approach to pancreatic cancer seems to be that adjuvant treatment can start earlier. Minimal access total pancreatectomy, only reported in small numbers (mostly robot assisted), has also been shown to be feasible and safe. Enucleation (EN) of small pancreatic lesions is the most common tissue sparing resection. Although no reconstruction is necessary, the risk of pancreatic fistula is high, related to excision margins equal or smaller than 2 mm to the main pancreatic duct. Compared to the open approach, laparoscopic EN has shown comparable results in terms of morbidity, pancreatic function and fistula rate, with shorter operation times and faster recovery. Experience in robot assisted pancreatic surgery is increasing. However reports are still small in numbers, lacking randomization and mostly limited to dedicated centers. The learning curve for minimal access pancreatic surgery is steep. Low patient volume leads to longer DOS, higher costs and negatively impacts outcome.

Current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy

Classic pancreatectomy procedures usually require resection of the pancreas and surrounding organs, having disadvantages of major trauma, long hospital stay and high morbidity. In order to preserve organ function as much as possible, many types of organ preserving pancreatectomy have been widely used in the treatment of benign pancreatic tumors and low-grade malignant lesions, including tumor enucleation, pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, middle segmental pancreatectomy, and spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. With the development of minimally invasive techniques in recent years, laparoscopic and robotic techniques have been also safely applied in organ preserving pancreatectomy. This article will review the current research status of organ preserving pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy with or without Preservation of the Spleen for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare tumor of the pancreas. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a feasible and safe procedure, and successful spleen preservation rates are higher using a laparoscopic approach. We hypothesized that certain patients with SPN would be good candidates for laparoscopic surgery; however, few surgeons have reported laparoscopic DP for SPN. We discuss the preoperative assessment and surgical simulation for two SPN cases. A simulation was designed because we consider that a thorough preoperative understanding of the procedure based on three-dimensional image analysis is important for successful laparoscopic DP. We also discuss the details of the actual laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation that we performed for our two SPN cases. It is critical to use appropriate instruments at appropriate points in the procedure; surgical instruments are numerous and varied, and surgeons should maximize the use of each instrument. Finally, we discuss the key techniques and surgical pitfalls in laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation. We conclude that experience alone is inadequate for successful laparoscopic surgery.