Impact of spleen preservation on the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: Is less more?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a major complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with a significant impact on patients' quality of life. There is limited evidence that preservation of the spleen reduces the risk of POPF. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of splenectomy on perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent DP for malignant and benign disease at our institution between 2004 and 2021 were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to spleen preservation (SP-DP) and splenectomy (DPS). Intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to investigate factors that influence the occurrence of clinically relevant (cr)POPF.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients were included, of whom 61 (30.7%) patients underwent SP-DP. Patients who underwent SP-DP had a significantly lower rate of crPOPF (p = 0.022), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.003), and less readmissions (p = 0.012). On multivariate analysis, obesity (OR 2.88, p = 0.021), benign lesions (OR 2.35, p = 0.018), postoperative acute pancreatitis (OR 2.53, p = 0.028), and splenectomy (OR 2.83, p = 0.011) were independent risk factors associated with the onset of crPOPF.

DISCUSSION

Preservation of the spleen reduces the risk of crPOPF in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant disease.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.

Methods/design

DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265. Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center

INTRODUCTION

While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously.

METHODS

247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

Laparoscopic approach of the left side of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) is an increasingly used surgical technique for the treatment of benign and malignant lesions of the left side of the pancreas. The results of LLP as a treatment for primary pancreatic lesions of the head and tail of the pancreas were evaluated.

METHODS

From November 2011 to November 2017, 18 patients underwent surgery for primary lesions of the pancreas by means of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. An intra-abdominal drain tube was used in all cases, and the recommendations of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) were followed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.5years (IQR 46-74). Among the 18 left pancreatectomies performed, four were with splenic preservation, and one was a central pancreatectomy. There were two conversions. The median surgical time was 247.5minutes (IQR 242-275). The median postoperative hospital stay was 7days (IQR 6-8). After 90days, complications were detected in five patients: three gradeII, one gradeIII and one gradeV according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification. There was one gradeB pancreatic fistula, and four patients had to be readmitted to hospital because of peripancreatic collections. The anatomic pathology diagnosis was malignant neoplasm in 38.9% of cases, all of them with negative resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

LLP can be considered the technique of choice in the treatment of primary benign pancreatic lesions and an alternative to the open approach in selected patients diagnosed with malignant pancreatic lesions.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit.

RESULTS

A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m² (20-31 kg/m²). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Hypercoagulability after distal pancreatectomy: Just meaningless alterations?

BACKGROUND

Perioperative and short-term postoperative parameters are similar comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). But there are no sound data evaluating the long term risk of postoperative thromboses and infectious complications after splenectomy. The present study evaluated whether the coagulation status differs in patients after SPDP and DPS, and whether that matters clinically.

METHODS

A total of 41 patients after DP (SPDP = 20; DPS = 21) were followed up, focusing on alterations of patient coagulation and immune status. To assess kinetics of the coagulation process, qualitative tests (multiple platelet function analyzer, rotational thrombelastography) were used in addition to global coagulation tests.

RESULTS

Coagulation tests revealed a significant enhanced tendency for blood-platelet aggregation and coagulation activation in patients after DPS compared to patients after SPDP. No septic or thromboembolic events were observed in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Hypercoagulability in splenectomized patients persists over years. Thus, a correlation of this finding with thromboembolic events and mortality years after splenectomy should to be performed in a large cohort.

Single institution results of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of pancreas in 78 patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to present results of the radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) procedure in 78 patients from a single center.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients had RAMPS procedure over 13 years. A database dealing with RAMPS for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas was constructed so that it could be converted into a set of tables. Each table covered one element of the subject. The database was populated from clinical records of patients who had a RAMPS procedure from 1999 to 2013.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients had anterior RAMPS and 22 had posterior RAMPS. Negative tangential margins were obtained in 94% of specimens. Overall the R0 rate was 85%. Mean lymph node count was 20. There were no 30-day or in-hospital mortalities but two patients died within 90 days. Pancreatic fistula and need for postoperative transfusion were the most common complications. Median survival was 24.6 months and 5-year overall actuarial survival was 25.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAMPS technique resulted in high negative tangential margin rates and good lymph node retrieval. The long-term survival result in 78 patients is probably an accurate reflection of what is possible with this tumor using this technique at this time.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.

Extent of surgical resections for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) can involve the main pancreatic duct (MD-IPMNs) or its secondary branches (BD-IPMNs) in a segmental of multifocal/diffuse fashion. Growing evidence indicates that BD-IPMNs are less likely to harbour cancer and in selected cases these lesions can be managed non operatively. For surgery, clarification is required on: (1) when to resect an IPMN; (2) which type of resection should be performed; and (3) how much pancreas should be resected. In recent years parenchyma-sparing resections as well as laparoscopic procedures have being performed more frequently by pancreatic surgeons in order to decrease the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency and to minimize the surgical impact of these operations. However, oncological radicality is of paramount importance, and extended resections up to total pancreatectomy may be necessary in the setting of IPMNs. In this article the type and extension of surgical resections in patients with MD-IPMNs and BD-IPMNs are analyzed, evaluating perioperative and long-term outcomes. The role of standard and parenchyma-sparing resections is discussed as well as different strategies in the case of multifocal neoplasms.