Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes

Multicenter outcomes of robotic reconstruction during the early learning curve for minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Perceived excess morbidity during the early learning curve of minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has limited widespread adoption. It was hypothesized that robot-assisted reconstruction (RA) after MIPD allows anastomotic outcomes equivalent to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Intent to treat analysis of centrally audited data accrued during early adoption of RA-MIPD at five centers.

RESULTS

CUSUM analysis of operating times at each center identified 92 RA-MIPD during the early learning curve. Mean age was 65 ± 12 years with body mass index 25.8 ± 5.0. Surgical indications included malignant (60%) and premalignant (38%) lesions. Median operating time was 504 min (interquartile range 133) with 242 ml median estimated blood loss (IQR 398) and twelve (13%) conversions to open PD. Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) was 24% with 2 (2.2%) deaths and ten (10.9%) reoperations. Nine (9.9%) clinically significant pancreatic fistulae were observed (4 grade B; 5 grade C). Margin negative resection rate for malignancy was 90% (75% for PDA) with mean harvest of 16 ± 8 lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

These multicenter data during the early learning curve for RA-MIPD do not demonstrate excess anastomotic morbidity compared to open. Further studies are required to determine whether surgeon proficiency and evolving technique improve anastomotic outcomes compared to open.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy may yield short-term benefits, but has not been investigated in a randomized trial. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for short-term outcomes in a randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with periampullary cancers were randomized to either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy. The outcomes evaluated were hospital stay (primary outcome), and blood loss, radicality of surgery, duration of operation and complication rate (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Of 268 patients, 64 who met the eligibility criteria were randomized, 32 to each group. The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was longer for open pancreaticoduodenectomy than for laparoscopy (13 (range 6-30) versus 7 (5-52) days respectively; P = 0·001). Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopy group. Blood loss was significantly greater in the open group (mean(s.d.) 401(46) versus 250(22) ml; P < 0·001). Number of nodes retrieved and R0 rate were similar in the two groups. There was no difference between the open and laparoscopic groups in delayed gastric emptying (7 of 32 versus 5 of 32), pancreatic fistula (6 of 32 versus 5 of 32) or postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (4 of 32 versus 3 of 32). Overall complications (defined according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) were similar (10 of 32 versus 8 of 32). There was one death in each group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy offered a shorter hospital stay than open pancreatoduodenectomy in this randomized trial. Registration number: NCT02081131( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resection for cancer represents a real challenge for every surgeon. Recent improvements in laparoscopic experience, minimally invasive surgical techniques and instruments make now the minimally invasive approach a real "triumph." There is no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has replaced with great success conventional surgery in many fields, including surgical oncology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

However, its progress in pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma has been dramatically slow. Recent evidence supports the notion that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible and that is becoming the procedure of choice mainly for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. On the other side, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has not yet been widely accepted and there is enormous skepticism when applied for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the potential applications of minimally invasive surgical approaches for this aggressive, heterogeneous, and enigmatic type of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Moreover, the potential future applications of these approaches are discussed with the hope to improve the quality of life as well as the survival rates of pancreatic cancer patients.

Minimally invasive pancreatic cancer surgery: What is the current evidence?

Surgery remains the only option to cure pancreatic cancer. Although the use of laparoscopy in oncology is rapidly growing worldwide, its efficacy in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. A number of studies have compared outcomes of minimally invasive and open pancreatic resections. However, they are mostly non-randomized trials including relatively small groups of patients. In addition, most of these studies were conducted in high-volume pancreatic centres. It seems that despite longer operative time, laparoscopy may be beneficial in terms of morbidity, blood loss and hospital stay. Thus far, very little is known about the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our aim was to review current evidence for the use of minimally invasive techniques in patients with pancreatic malignancy.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Cohort and Registry Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to appraise and to evaluate the current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy only in comparative cohort and registry studies.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising, but most data come from single-center, noncomparative series.

METHODS

Comparative cohort and registry studies on MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published before August 23, 2015 were identified systematically and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were mortality and International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

RESULTS

After screening 2293 studies, 19 comparative cohort studies (1833 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 2 original registry studies (19,996 patients) were included. For cohort studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 14. Selection bias was present for cancer diagnosis. No differences were found in mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-1.9] or POPF [(OR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3]. Publication bias was present for POPF. MIPD was associated with prolonged operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 74 minutes, 95% CI = 29-118], but lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -385 mL, 95% CI = -616 to -154), less delayed gastric emptying (OR = 0.6, 95% = CI 0.5-0.8), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3 days, 95% CI = -5 to -2). For registry studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 2.5. Mortality after MIPD was increased in low-volume hospitals (7.5% vs 3.4%; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising in comparative cohort studies, despite the presence of bias, whereas registry studies report higher mortality in low-volume centers. The introduction of MIPD should be closely monitored and probably done only within structured training programs in high-volume centers.

Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, no study has reported long-term oncologic outcome for patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) compared to open surgery (OPD). The aim of this study is assess long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with adenocarcinoma undergoing LPD versus OPD using propensity score weighting modeling to minimize selection bias.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing PD at Institut Mutualiste Montsouris between January 2000 and April 2010 were included. Propensity scores were calculated using multivariate logistic regression, relating preoperative covariates to surgical approach. Logistic regression was performed, and Cox proportional hazards models for postoperative outcomes were constructed, with and without adjustment for propensity scores weights.

RESULTS

Among 87 patients who underwent PD, 40 underwent LPD and 25 OPD for confirmed adenocarcinoma. Preoperative covariates across both groups were comparable. The median follow-up time was 34.5 months. During follow-up, metastasis was identified in 16 (40%) LPD and 7 (28%) OPD patients. After propensity score adjustment, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.5 versus 29.6 months, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 80.5, 49.2, 39.7% and 77.8, 46.4, 30% in the LP and OPD groups (P = 0.41, 0.42, 0.25), respectively. The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 21.5 versus 13.7 months (LPD vs. OPD), and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 70.9, 33.3, 21.9% and 62.3, 37.9, 25.7% in the LP and OPD groups (P = 0.27, 0.37, 0.39), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the early adoption of LPD, this study is the first to report on long-term oncologic safety of LPD: LPD is non-inferior to OPD with respect to long-term outcomes for patients with adenocarcinoma.

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.

Contemporary review of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

AIM

To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

PD remains the only potentially curative treatment for periampullary malignancies, including, most commonly, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimally invasive approaches to this complex operation have begun to be increasingly reported in the literature and are purported by some to reduce the historically high morbidity of PD associated with the open technique. In this systematic review, we have searched the literature for high-quality publications describing minimally invasive techniques for PD-including laparoscopic, robotic, and laparoscopic-assisted robotic approaches (hybrid approach). We have identified publications with the largest operative experiences from well-known centers of excellence for this complex procedure. We report primarily short term operative and perioperative results and some short term oncologic endpoints.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques include laparoscopic, robotic and hybrid approaches and each of these techniques has strong advocates. Consistently, across all minimally invasive modalities, these techniques are associated less intraoperative blood loss than traditional open PD (OPD), but in exchange for longer operating times. These techniques are relatively equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity and short term oncologic outcomes. Importantly, pancreatic fistula rate appears to be comparable in most minimally invasive series compared to open technique. Impact of minimally invasive technique on length of stay is mixed compared to some traditional open series. A few series have suggested that initiation of and time to adjuvant therapy may be improved with minimally invasive techniques, however this assertion remains controversial. In terms of short-terms costs, minimally invasive PD is significantly higher than that of OPD.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approaches to PD show great promise as a strategy to improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PD, but the best results remain isolated to high-volume centers of excellence.

Performance of Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy for Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of Pancreas

BACKGROUND Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas (Frantz tumor) is a rare, low-grade malignant neoplasm. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a good approach for tumors located in the pancreatic head. We present two successful cases in young women. CASE REPORT A 19-year-old woman was admitted to Department of Digestive Surgery due to epigastric pain, nausea, and vomiting. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen was performed, and a 3.0×2.2 cm solid tumor localized in the head of the pancreas was observed. After the diagnosis of Frantz tumor of the pancreas, the patient underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Histopathology confirmed solid and cystic pseudopapillary tumor. The postoperative course was uneventful, and after 8 months the patient remained disease-free. An 18-year-old woman was admitted at the emergency room with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. Computed tomography scans revealed a mass of 4.1×3.3 cm in size in the head of the pancreas consistent with a solid pseudopapillary tumor. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by two expert surgeons who divided the work: one did resection and the other did reconstruction. The patient was discharged at postoperative day 6 without complications, and during five months of follow-up the patient has been well and without disease. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy can be performed safely in patients with Frantz tumor by surgeons with expertise in laparoscopic surgery, technical skill, and adequate equipment.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: current status and future directions

In recent years, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has been gaining a favorable position in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, its role still remains unclear. This review investigates the current status of LPD in high-volume centers. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, and only papers written in English containing more than 30 cases of LPD were selected. Papers with "hybrid" or robotic technique were not included in the analysis. Out of a total of 728 LPD publications, 7 publications matched the review criteria. The total number of patients analyzed was 516, and the largest series included 130 patients. Four of these studies come from the United States, 1 from France, 1 from South Korea, and 1 from India. In 6 reports, LPDs were performed only for malignant disease. The overall pancreatic fistula rate grades B-C were 12.7%. The overall conversion rate was 6.9%. LPD seems to be a valid alternative to the standard open approach with similar technical and oncological results. However, the lack of many large series, multi-institutional data, and randomized trials does not allow the clarification of the exact role of LPD.

Current status of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreatectomy

This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP), and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). Some retrospective studies comparing LPD or LDP and open procedures have demonstrated the safety and feasibility as well as the intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery of these procedures. In contrast, LCP and LTP have not been widely accepted as common laparoscopic procedures owing to their complicated reconstruction and limited indications. Nevertheless, our concise review reveals that LCP and LTP performed by expert laparoscopic surgeons can result in good short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, as surgeons' experience with laparoscopic techniques continues to grow around the world, new innovations and breakthroughs in MIPS will evolve. Well-designed and suitably powered randomized controlled trials of LPD, LDP, LCP, and LTP are now warranted to demonstrate the superiority of these procedures.

The Laparoscopic Re-Exploration in the Management of the Gallbladder Remnant and the Cystic Duct Stump Calculi

INTRODUCTION

The gallbladder remnant and the cystic duct stump calculi are uncommon causes of post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Re-exploration is usually needed in the cases where symptom persists. Very few case series and reports are available regarding laparoscopic re-exploration.

AIM

To assess the safety and feasibility of Laparoscopic re-exploration in the cases of gallbladder remnant and cystic duct stump calculi leading to post cholecystectomy syndromes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, laparoscopic re-explorations was done in 22 patients in which 17 patients had gallbladder remnant calculi and 5 had cystic duct stump calculi. The study considered parameters like the operative time, conversion rate, post-operative complications, post-operative hospital stay and mortality in these patients. The duration of study was 15 years and the data was retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The median operating time was 83 minutes (range 51 to 134 minutes). Only one patient had conversion to open surgery. In postoperative period two patients had bile leak. They were managed conservatively and leak subsided in 8 and 11 days respectively. One patient had postoperative bleeding not requiring blood transfusion. There was no major complication requiring further intervention and no mortality. Patients were discharged on median day 4 (range 2-11) after the surgery. Patients were followed up every 3 months for one year. However, out of these three patients did not turn up for follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In expert hands laparoscopic re-exploration of the gallbladder remnant/cystic duct stump calculi can be performed within a reasonable operating time. The conversion to conventional re-exploration rate was very low with minimal post-operative complications and shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy remains as the only treatment that offers a chance for cure in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the head of the pancreas. In recent years, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been introduced as a feasible alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) when performed by experienced surgeons. This study reviews and compares perioperative results and long-term survival of patients undergoing LPD versus OPD at a single institution over a 20-year time period.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2014, 612 patients underwent PD and 251 patients were found to have PDAC. These latter patients were reviewed and divided into two groups: OPD (n = 193) and LPD (n = 58). LPD was introduced in November 2008 and performed simultaneous to OPD within the remaining time period. Ninety-day perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were well matched. Operative time was significantly longer with LPD, but blood loss and transfusion rate were lower. Postoperative complications, intensive care unit stay, and overall hospital stay was similar. OPD was associated with larger tumor size; LPD was associated with greater lymph node harvest and lower lymph node ratio. LPD was performed by hand-assist method in 3 (5.2 %) patients and converted to open in 14 (24.1 %). Neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 17 (8.8 %) patients for OPD and 4 (6.9 %) for LPD. The estimated median survival was 20.3 months for OPD and 18.5 months for LPD. Long-term survival was similar for 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival for OPD (68, 40, 24, 17 and 15 %) and for LPD (67, 43, 43, 38 and 32 %), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LPD provides similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival to OPD in the treatment of PDAC.

Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes Following Selective Application of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Data are sparse regarding patient selection criteria or evaluating oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Having prospectively limited LPD to patients with resectable disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, we evaluated perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of LPD compared to a similar cohort of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Consecutive patients (November 2010-February 2014) undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for periampullary adenocarcinoma were reviewed. Patients were excluded from further analysis for benign pathology, conversion to OPD for portal vein resection, and contraindications for LPD not related to their malignancy. Outcomes of patients undergoing LPD were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner against a cohort of patients undergoing OPD.

RESULTS

These selection criteria resulted in offering LPD to 77 % of all cancer patients. Compared to the OPD cohort, LPD was associated with significant reductions in wound infections (16 vs. 34 %; P = 0.038), pancreatic fistula (17 vs. 36 %; P = 0.032), and median hospital stay (9 vs. 12 days; P = 0.025). Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between patients undergoing LPD vs. OPD for periampullary adenocarcinoma (median OS 27.9 vs. 23.5 months; P = 0.955) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 28 vs. 22 patients; median OS 20.7 vs. 21.1 months; P = 0.703).

CONCLUSIONS

The selective application of LPD for periampullary malignancies results in a high degree of eligibility as well as significant reductions in length of stay, wound infections, and pancreatic fistula. Overall survival after LPD is similar to OPD.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy combined with a novel self-assessment system and feedback discussion: a phase 1 surgical trial following the IDEAL guidelines

PURPOSE

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard yet complicated procedure for periampullary tumors. To introduce a laparoscopic approach for PD (Lap-PD), a robust and objective assessment system to evaluate the quality of this approach is needed. We describe a phase 1 surgical trial of Lap-PD (Registration ID: UMIN000015328) as a triad of surgery, novel self-assessment system, and feedback discussion implementing the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) guidelines.

METHODS

This was a surgical phase I trial (corresponding to IDEAL stage 1) approved by the Ethics Committee of our hospital. The resection sequence was divided into 10 parts that were assessed and classified into one of four grades of achievement. Evaluation of each part was then integrated, and the whole Lap-PD was categorized into three grades of achievement. We set discontinuance criteria based on historical surgical outcome of open PD. The previous case was discussed before each new case, and measures to overcome problems were implemented. Five patients underwent Lap-PD.

RESULTS

All Lap-PDs were completed laparoscopically and reconstructed via mini-laparotomy. One patient suffered recurrent ileus requiring re-laparotomy to resolve a severe adhesion. After 1 year, no patient suffered disease recurrence or complication. Based on the self-assessment system, four Lap-PDs were successful, whereas one was rated as feasible owing to bleeding requiring conversion of resection sequence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our triad system for evaluating Lap-PD could be a useful tool for the safe introduction and maintenance of Lap-PD.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pancreatic Disease - Current Status

Laparoscopic procedures have advanced to represent the new gold standard in many surgical fields. Although application in pancreatic surgery is hampered by the friable nature of the gland and the difficulty of its exposure, advanced technology and surgeons' experience are leading to an expansion of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. Addressing the whole range of main operative procedures, this review analyzes the literature data so far to give an overview about the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, its indications and limitations. In acute pancreatitis, a step-up approach from percutaneous drainage to retroperitoneoscopic necrosectomy seems beneficial. Transgastric necrosectomy also preserves the retroperitoneal compartment in contrast to the laparoscopic approach, which has widely been abandoned. In tumor pathology, laparoscopic access is adequate for small benign lesions in the pancreatic tail and body. Oncological outcome shows to be at least equal to the open procedure. Concerning laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, there is no evidence for a patients' benefit currently although several studies prove that it can be done.

Systemic Review of the Feasibility and Advantage of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is a complex procedure that needs to be performed by experienced surgeons. However, the safety and oncologic performance have not yet been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published up to March 2015. Articles written in English containing the keywords: "pancreaticoduodenectomy" or "Whipple operation" combined with "laparoscopy," "laparoscopic," "robotic," "da vinci," or "minimally invasive surgery" were selected. Furthermore, to increase the power of evidence, articles describing more than ten MIPDs were selected for this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles matched the review criteria. A total of 780 LPDs and 248 RPDs were included in the current review. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 9.1 %. The weighted average operative time was 422.6 min, and the weighted average blood loss was 321.1 mL. The weighted average number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.1, and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margins was 8.4 %. The cumulative morbidity was 35.9 %, and a pancreatic fistula was reported in 17.0 % of cases. The average length of hospital stay was 12.4 days, and the mortality rate was 2.2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, after reviewing one-thousand cases in the current literature, we conclude that MIPD offers a good perioperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome. MIPD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients.

Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy in 50 Consecutive Patients with No Mortality: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery has gradually expanded to include pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This study presents data regarding the efficacy of laparoscopic PD in a single center.

METHODS

This was a single-cohort, prospective observational study. From March 2012 to September 2015, 50 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic PD using a five-trocar technique. Reconstruction of the digestive tract was performed with double jejunal loop technique whenever feasible. Patients with radiological signs of portal vein invasion were operated by open approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven women and 23 men with a median age of 63 years (range 23-76) underwent laparoscopic PD. Five patients underwent total pancreatectomy. All, but 1 patient (previous bariatric operation), underwent pylorus-preserving resection. Reconstruction was performed with double jejunal loop in all cases except in 5 cases of total pancreatectomy. Conversion was required in 3 patients (6%) as a result of difficult dissection (two cases) and unsuspected portal vein invasion (1 patient). Median operative time was 420 minutes (range 360-660), and the 90-day mortality was nil. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 13 patients (26%). There was one grade C (reoperated), one grade B (percutaneous drainage), and all remaining were grade A (conservative treatment). Other complications included port site bleeding (n = 1), biliary fistula (n = 2), and delayed gastric emptying (n = 2). Mean hospital stay was 8.4 days (range 5-31).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD is feasible and safe, but is technically demanding and may be reserved to highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons with proper training in high-volume centers. Isolated pancreatic anastomosis may be useful to decrease the severity of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. Therefore, it could be a good option in patients with a high risk for developing postoperative pancreatic, as well as by less-experienced surgeons.

Total laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy in an 89-year-old man: A case report and review of a single institute's experience in elderly patients

Total laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (tLPPPD) has been demonstrated to be a safe and feasible surgery for pancreatic malignant diseases located in the head or uncinate process, with the advantages including minimal invasion, lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenonectomy. Elderly patients theoretically have a lower capability to tolerate complex surgeries. The impairment of heart and pulmonary reserve function often leads to a high risk of post-operative cardiopulmonary complications. The present study reports a case of tLPPPD that was successfully performed in an 89-year-old man. No fatal complications developed. The post-operative pathological result revealed a diagnosis of pancreatic uncinate adenocarcinoma (T2N0M0, stage IB). After 1 year of follow-up, the patient remained alive without tumor recurrence or metastasis. The present study also discusses the associated literature and concludes that tLPPPD is a safe and feasible procedure in selective elderly patients. Use of this technique may expand the number of patients who can undergo surgery and provide benefits to these patients.

Advances in the Surgical Management of Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreas Cancer

Successful surgical resection offers the only chance for cure in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, pancreatic resection is feasible in less than 20% of the patients. In this review, the current state of surgical management of pancreatic cancer is discussed. The definition of resectability based on cross-sectional imaging and the technical aspects of surgery, including vascular resection and/or reconstruction, management of aberrant vascular anatomy and extent of lymphadenectomy, are appraised. Furthermore, common pancreatic resection-specific postoperative complications and their management are reviewed.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer: ready for prime time?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer are being applied with increasing frequency. With support of the literature, the location of the tumor within the pancreas is the factor which determines if these techniques can be safely used routinely by pancreatic surgeons.

METHODS

Literature supporting minimally invasive techniques for all types of resections for pancreatic cancer was reviewed.

RESULTS

Multiple meta-analysis regarding laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy all support the routine use of laparoscopy for these lesions. There are several case series describing the safety and efficacious use of laparoscopy in pancreaticoduodenectomy, and results have been promising in these highly specialized centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The location of the tumor within the pancreas remains the most critical factor in the use of laparoscopy as the standard of care. Lesions in the body and tail, which are readily resected with a distal or subtotal pancreatectomy should be performed laparoscopically unless there is a clear reason why not to do so. Lesions in the head of the pancreas have been shown to be removed safely and effectively with laparoscopy. However, the technical skills necessary and the ability to teach these to trainees are the limiting factors to widespread use. Further series are necessary to assess if the laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy will play a similar role as the one it plays in the surgical treatment for distal lesions.

[Duodenal dystrophy: An interdisciplinary problem]

Duodenal dystrophy (DD) is the pathological change in the wall of the duodenum, which is caused by chronic inflammation in its ectopic pancreatic tissue. The most common complications of DD are acute or chronic pancreatitis and impaired duodenal patency, which along with severe pain are an indication for surgical treatment. Pancreaticoduodenal resection is recognized as the operation of choice. The paper describes a clinical case demonstrating the efficiency and safety of minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgical technologies in this category of patients. Resectional interventions of this volume are also shown to be accompanied by the development of pancreatic insufficiency that necessitates continuous enzyme replacement therapy.

Single center experience in selecting the laparoscopic Frey procedure for chronic pancreatitis

AIM: To share our experience regarding the laparoscopic Frey procedure for chronic pancreatitis (CP) and patient selection.

METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection from July 2013 to July 2014 were reviewed and those undergoing the Frey procedure for CP were included in this study. Data on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists score, imaging findings, inflammatory index (white blood cells, interleukin (IL)-6, and C-reaction protein), visual analogue score score during hospitalization and outpatient visit, history of CP, operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative data (postoperative mortality and morbidity, postoperative length of hospital stay) were obtained for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The open surgery cases in this study were analyzed for risk factors related to extensive bleeding, which was the major reason for conversion during the laparoscopic procedure. Age, gender, etiology, imaging findings, amylase level, complications due to pancreatitis, functional insufficiency, and history of CP were assessed in these patients.

RESULTS: Nine laparoscopic and 37 open Frey procedures were analyzed. Of the 46 patients, 39 were male (85%) and seven were female (16%). The etiology of CP was alcohol in 32 patients (70%) and idiopathic in 14 patients (30%). Stones were found in 38 patients (83%). An inflammatory mass was found in five patients (11%). The time from diagnosis of CP to the Frey procedure was 39 ± 19 (9-85) mo. The BMI of patients in the laparoscopic group was 20.4 ± 1.7 (17.8-22.4) kg/m² and was 20.6 ± 2.9 (15.4-27.7) kg/m² in the open group. All patients required analgesic medication for abdominal pain. Frequent acute pancreatitis or severe abdominal pain due to acute exacerbation occurred in 20 patients (43%). Pre-operative complications due to pancreatitis were observed in 18 patients (39%). Pancreatic functional insufficiency was observed in 14 patients (30%). Two laparoscopic patients (2/9) were converted. In seven successful laparoscopic cases, the mean operative time was 323 ± 29 (290-370) min. Estimated intra-operative blood loss was 57 ± 14 (40-80) mL. One patient had a postoperative complication, and no mortality was observed. Postoperative hospital stay was 7 ± 2 (5-11) d. Multiple linear regression analysis of 37 open Frey procedures showed that an inflammatory mass (P < 0.001) and acute exacerbation (P < 0.001) were risk factors for intra-operative blood loss.

CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic Frey procedure for CP is feasible but only suitable in carefully selected patients.

Laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy as minimally invasive surgery for periampullary tumors: a comparison of short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Few reports have described laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) as an alternative to the conventional open approach for periampullary tumors. The safety and feasibility of this procedure remain to be determined. In this study, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of LAPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors between June and December 2014 was conducted. Patient demographic data and their pathological and short-term clinical parameters were compared between the LAPD and OPD groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included in the study: 18 had undergone LAPD and 34 had undergone OPD. The mean operation time was longer for LAPD than for OPD (531.1 vs. 383.2 min, P < 0.001). The estimated blood loss, rate of blood transfusion, surgical resection margin status, and number of lymph nodes retrieved were similar in both groups. Overall morbidity and the incidence of pancreatic fistula did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LAPD group (12.6 vs. 18.6 days, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LAPD is a technically safe and feasible alternative treatment for periampullary tumors, with short-term clinical outcomes equivalent to those of OPD, with a shorter hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy Does Not Improve Use or Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The modifiable variable best proven to improve survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy. A theoretical advantage of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD) is the potential for greater use and earlier initiation of adjuvant therapy, but this benefit remains unproven.

METHODS

The 2010-2012 National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Subjects were classified as MI-PD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PD). Baseline variables were compared between groups. The independent effect of surgical approach on the use and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy was estimated using multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

For this study, 7967 subjects were identified: 1191 MI-PD (14.9%) and 6776 O-PD (85.1%) patients. Patients who underwent MI-PD were more likely to have been treated at academic hospitals. Otherwise, the groups had no baseline differences. In both the MI-PD and O-PD groups, approximately 50% of the patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, initiated at a median of 54 versus 55 days postoperatively (p = 0.08). After multivariable adjustment, surgical approach was not independently associated with use (odds ratio 1.00; p = 0.99) or time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (-2.3 days; p = 0.07). Younger age, insured status, lower comorbidity score, higher tumor stage, and the presence of lymph node metastases were independently associated with the use of adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

At a national level, MI-PD does not result in greater use or earlier initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. As surgeons and institutions continue to gain experience with this complex procedure, it will be important to revisit this benchmark as a justification for its increasing use for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Major venous resection and reconstruction using a minimally invasive approach during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: One step forward

In the current era of technological advancement, the feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been established. However, major venous resection and reconstruction along with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is still considered a complex procedure. A 47-year-old woman presented with obstructive jaundice secondary to carcinoma in the pancreatic head. Triphasic abdominal CT revealed a 2.7 × 3.0-cm heterogenous mass in the pancreatic head with peripancreatic lymphadenopathy without vascular involvement. The patient was scheduled for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. During mobilization, the tumor was found adherent to the superior mesenteric vein. Therefore, vascular resection and reconstruction was accomplished laparoscopically along with pancreaticoduodenectomy. The duration of superior mesenteric vein occlusion was 45 min. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged on postoperative day 10. Major venous resection and reconstruction during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy using a minimally invasive approach is feasible in selected patients. Adequate experience in complex laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is required before attempting this procedure.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Right Posterior Superior Mesenteric Artery "First" Approach

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is considered one of the most challenging abdominal operations for several reasons, including the anatomy, which is surrounded by vital vascular structures and also because of the serious complications that are possible in the postoperative period. Nowadays, thanks to the development of minimally invasive surgery and improvement of patients' selection, laparoscopic pancreatic resections have been proven to be technically feasible and safe especially in the case of left pancreatectomies. More recently, many series of laparoscopic PD for adenocarcinoma have been published demonstrating the feasibility of this technique. In pancreatic cancer, the advantage of superior mesenteric artery "first approach" is already known to achieve an oncological resection. The purpose of this video is to describe the different technical aspects of the laparoscopic superior mesenteric artery first approach in the right posterior fashion.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy does not completely mitigate increased perioperative risks in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) are at increased risk for surgical morbidity and mortality. Whether totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) mitigates these risks has not been evaluated.

METHODS

A retrospective review of outcomes in patients submitted to pancreatoduodenectomy during 2007-2014 was conducted (n = 860). Outcomes in elderly patients (aged ≥70 years) were compared with those in non-elderly patients with respect to risk-adjusted postoperative morbidity and mortality. Differences in outcomes between patients submitted to OPD and TLPD, respectively, were evaluated in the elderly subgroup.

RESULTS

In elderly patients, the incidences of cardiac events (odds ratio [OR] 3.21, P < 0.001), respiratory events (OR 1.68, P = 0.04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR 1.73, P = 0.003), increased length of stay (LoS, 1 additional day) (P < 0.001), discharge disposition other than home (OR 8.14, P < 0.001) and blood transfusion (OR 1.48, P = 0.05) were greater than in non-elderly patients. Morbidity and mortality did not differ between the OPD and TLPD subgroups of elderly patients. In elderly patients, OPD was associated with increased DGE (OR 1.80, P = 0.03), LoS (1 additional day; P < 0.001) and blood transfusion (OR 2.89, P < 0.001) compared with TLPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients undergoing TLPD experience rates of mortality, morbidity and cardiorespiratory events similar to those in patients submitted to OPD. In elderly patients, TLPD offers benefits by decreasing DGE, LoS and blood transfusion requirements.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Cancer: Practice Patterns and Short-term Outcomes Among 7061 Patients

OBJECTIVES

To describe national practice patterns regarding utilization of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and compare short-term outcomes with those following open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in use of MIPD; however, published data are limited to single institutional experiences.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010-2011. Descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling were employed to characterize use of MIPD (laparoscopic or robotic) and compare short-term outcomes to those following open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 7061 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy: 983 had MIPD and 6078 had open procedures. The use of MIPD increased by 45% (179 cases) from 2010 to 2011. The majority of hospitals (92%) performing MIPD were low volume (≤ 10 cases/2 years). Factors independently associated with undergoing MIPD included fewer comorbidities, treatment at an academic institution, and a neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis (all P < 0.01). The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 5.1% for MIPD versus 3.1% after open surgery. For patients with adenocarcinoma, there were no differences between MIPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy after multivariable adjustment in number of lymph nodes removed, rate of positive surgical margins, length of stay, or readmissions. However, 30-day mortality was higher for patients undergoing MIPD versus open surgery (odds ratio = 1.87, confidence interval: 1.25-2.80, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

While there is increasing interest in employing MIPD for adenocarcinoma, its use is associated with increased 30-day mortality. The majority of hospitals performing MIPD were low volume. These results may suggest that MIPD is a complex procedure for which comprehensive protocols outlining criteria for implementation might be warranted to optimize patient safety.

The First Decade of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: Costs and Outcomes Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains an uncommon procedure, and the safety and efficacy remain uncertain beyond single institution case series. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes and costs between laparoscopic (LPD) and open PD (OPD) using a large population-based database.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (a sample of approximately 20 % of all hospital discharges) was analyzed to identify patients who underwent PD from 2000 to 2010. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, inflation-adjusted total charges, and complications were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Hospitals were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH) if more than 20 PD (open and laparoscopic) were performed annually, while those performing fewer than 20 PD were classified as low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the 15,574 PD identified, 681 cases were LPD (4.4 %). Compared to OPD, patients who underwent LPD were slightly older (65 vs. 67 years; p = 0.001) and were more commonly treated at HVH (56.6 vs. 66.1 %; p < 0.001). Higher rates of complications were observed in OPD than LPD (46 vs. 39.4 %; p = 0.001), though mortality rates were comparable (5 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.27). Inflation-adjusted median hospital charges were similar between OPD and LPD ($87,577 vs. $81,833, p = 0.199). However, hospital stay was slightly longer in the OPD group compared to LPD group (12 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). Stratifying outcomes by hospital volume, LPD at HVH resulted in shorter hospital stays (9 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001), which translated into significantly lower median hospital charges ($76,572 vs. $106,367, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to fears regarding the potential for compromised outcomes early in the learning curve, LPD morbidity in its first decade is modestly reduced, while hospital costs are comparable to OPD. In high-volume pancreatic hospitals, LPD is associated with a reduction in length of stay and hospital costs.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a descriptive and comparative review

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is an extremely challenging surgery. First described in 1994, it has been slow to gain in popularity. Recently, however, we have seen an increase in the number of centers performing this operation, including our own institution, as well as an increase in the quantity of published data. The purpose of this review is to describe the current status of LPD as described in the literature. We performed a literature search in the PubMed database using MeSH terms "laparoscopy" and "pancreaticoduodenectomy". We then identified articles in the English language with over 20 patients that focused on LPD only. Review articles were excluded and only one article per institution was used for descriptive analysis in order to avoid overlap. There were a total of eight articles meeting review criteria, consisting of 492 patients. On descriptive analysis we found that percent of LPD due to high-grade malignancy averaged 47% over all articles. Average operative time was 452 minutes, blood loss 369 cc's, pancreatic leak rate 15%, delayed gastric emptying 8.6%, length of hospital stay 9.4 days, and short term mortality 2.3%. Comparison studies between open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and LPD suggested decreased blood loss, longer operative time, similar post-operative complication rate, decreased pain, and shorter hospital length of stay for LPD. There was also increased number of lymph nodes harvested and similar margin free resections with LPD in the majority of studies. LPD is a safe surgery, providing many of the advantages typically associated with laparoscopic procedures. We expect this operation to continue to gain in popularity as well as be offered in increasingly more complex cases. In future studies, it will be beneficial to look further at the oncologic outcome data of LPD including survival.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) during the initial learning curve with open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of outcome and costs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the consecutive patients who underwent TLPD between December 2009 and April 2014 at our institution. The experiences of the initial 15 consecutive TLPD cases, considered as the initial learning curve of each surgeon, were compared with the same number of consecutive laparotomy cases with the same spectrum of diseases in terms of outcome and costs. Laparoscopic patients with conversion to open surgery were excluded. Preoperative demographic and comorbidity data were obtained. Postoperative data on intestinal movement, pain score, mortality, complications, and costs were obtained for analysis. Complications related to surgery included pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary leak, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. The total costs consisted of cost of surgery, anesthesia, and admission examination.

RESULTS: A total of 60 patients, including 30 consecutive laparoscopic cases and 30 consecutive open cases, were enrolled for review. Demographic and comorbidity characteristics of the two groups were similar. TLPD required a significantly longer operative time (513.17 ± 56.13 min vs 371.67 ± 85.53 min, P < 0.001). The TLPD group had significantly fewer mean numbers of days until bowel sounds returned (2.03 ± 0.55 d vs 3.83 ± 0.59 d, P < 0.001) and exhaustion (4.17 ± 0.75 d vs 5.37 ± 0.81 d, P < 0.001). The mean visual analogue score on postoperative day 4 was less in the TLPD group (3.5 ± 9.7 vs 4.47 ± 1.11, P < 0.05). No differences in surgery-related morbidities and mortality were observed between the two groups. Patients in the TLPD group recovered more quickly and required a shorter hospital stay after surgery (9.97 ± 3.74 d vs 11.87 ± 4.72 d, P < 0.05). A significant difference in the total cost was found between the two groups (TLPD 81317.43 ± 2027.60 RMB vs laparotomy 78433.23 ± 5788.12 RMB, P < 0.05). TLPD had a statistically higher cost for both surgery (24732.13 ± 929.28 RMB vs 19317.53 ± 795.94 RMB, P < 0.001) and anesthesia (6192.37 ± 272.77 RMB vs 5184.10 ± 146.93 RMB, P < 0.001), but a reduced cost for admission examination (50392.93 ± 1761.22 RMB vs 53931.60 ± 5556.94 RMB, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: TLPD is safe when performed by experienced pancreatobiliary surgeons during the initial learning curve, but has a higher cost than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Early National Experience with Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate about the safety and clinical equivalence of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDCA).

STUDY DESIGN

We queried the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients undergoing LPD and OPD for PDCA between 2010 and 2011. Chi-square and Student's t-tests were used to evaluate differences between the 2 approaches. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to identify patient, tumor, or facility factors associated with perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

Four thousand and thirty-seven (91%) patients underwent OPD. Three hundred and eighty-four (9%) patients underwent LPD. There were no statistical differences between the 2 surgical cohorts with regard to age, race, Charlson score, tumor size, grade, stage, or treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy demonstrated a shorter length of stay (10 ± 8 days vs 12 ± 9.7 days; p < 0.0001) and lower rates of unplanned readmission (5% vs 9%; p = 0.027) than OPD. In an unadjusted comparison, there was no difference in 30-day mortality between the LPD and OPD cohorts (5.2% vs 3.7%; p = 0.163). Multivariable logistic regression modeling predicting perioperative mortality controlling for age, Charlson score, tumor size, nodal positivity, stage, facility type, and pancreaticoduodenectomy volume identified age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; p < 0.0001), positive margins (OR = 1.45; p = 0.030), and LPD (OR = 1.89; p = 0.009) as associated with an increased probability of 30-day mortality; higher hospital volume was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.98; p < 0.0001). In institutions that performed ≥10 LPDs, the 30-day mortality rate of the laparoscopic approach was equal to that for the open approach (0.0% vs 0.7%; p = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is equivalent to OPD in length of stay, margin-positive resection, lymph node count, and readmission rate. There is a higher 30-day mortality rate with LPD, but this appears driven by a surmountable learning curve for the procedure.

Long-term results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancer-experience of 130 cases from a tertiary-care center in South India

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), although an advanced surgical procedure, is being increasingly used for pancreatic head and periampullary tumors. We present our experience of 15 years with the largest series in total LPD for periampullary and pancreatic head tumors with data on oncological outcome and long-term survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective and retrospective data of patients undergoing LPD from March 1998 to April 2013 were reviewed. Of the 150 cases, 20 cases of LPD (7 cases done for chronic pancreatitis and 13 cases for benign cystic tumors of the pancreas) have been excluded, which leaves us with 130 cases of LPD performed for malignant indications.

RESULTS

In total, 130 patients were chosen for the study. The male:female ratio was 1:1.6, with a median age of 54 years. We had one conversion to open surgery in our series, the overall postoperative morbidity was 29.7%, and the mortality rate was 1.53%. The pancreatic fistula rate was 8.46%. The mean operating time was 310±34 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 110±22 mL. The mean hospital stay was 8±2.6 days. Resected margins were positive in 9.23% of cases. The mean tumor size was 3.13±1.21 cm, and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 18.15±4.73. The overall 5-year actuarial survival was 29.42%, and the median survival was 33 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD has evolved over a period of two decades and has the potential to become the standard of care for select periampullary and pancreatic head tumors with acceptable oncological outcomes, especially in high-volume centers. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the advantages of LPD.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy via a reverse-''V'' approach with four ports: Initial experience and perioperative outcomes

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) using a reverse-“V” approach with four ports.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study of selected patients who underwent LPD at our center between April 2011 and April 2012. The following data were collected and reviewed: patient characteristics, tumor histology, surgical outcome, resection margins, morbidity, and mortality. All patients were thoroughly evaluated preoperatively by complete hematologic investigations, triple-phase helical computed tomography, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and biopsy of ampullary lesions (when present). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography was performed for doubtful cases of lower common bile duct lesions.

RESULTS: There was no perioperative mortality. LPD was performed with tumor-free margins in all patients, including patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 6), ampullary carcinoma (n = 6), intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (n = 2), pancreatic cystadenocarcinoma (n = 2), pancreatic head adenocarcinoma (n = 3), and bile duct cancer (n = 2). The mean patient age was 65 years (range, 42-75 years). The median blood loss was 240 mL, and the mean operative time was 368 min.

CONCLUSION: LPD using a reverse-“V” approach can be performed safely and yields good results in elective patients. Our preliminary experience showed that LDP can be performed via a reverse-“V” approach. This approach can be used to treat localized malignant lesions irrespective of histopathology.

Comparison of Pathological Radicality between Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a Tertiary Centre

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remained a formidable challenge owing to retroperitoneal location, difficult dissection near great vessels and critical intracorporeal anastomoses. Recent reviews of literature have established the feasibility and comparable short term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with that of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study was undertaken to compare the pathological radicality of LPD with OPD. A prospective database of all patients who underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy from Mar 2006 to Feb 2011 was taken up for this study. 45 patients who underwent LPD and 118 patients who underwent OPD for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy were taken up for analysis. The study groups were comparable in terms of age of presentation, ASA grades, comorbidity, type of surgery and BMI. There was no statistically significant difference with regard to tumor size, lymph node yield, node positivity rates, R1 rates and margin lengths. The pathological radicality of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is comparable with that of open approach when performed by experienced minimal-access surgeons. Standardized protocols for evaluation of the resection margins should be mandatory in studies reporting outcomes of pancreaticoduodectomy.

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

With the advance of laparoscopic experiences and techniques, it is carefully regarded that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (lap-PD) is feasible and safe in managing perimapullary pancreatic pathology. Especially, laparoscopic management of remnant pancreas can be a critical step toward completeness of minimally invasive PD. According to available published reports, there is a wide range of technical differences in choosing surgical options in managing remnant pancreas after lap-PD. For the evidence-based surgical approach, it would be ideal to test potential techniques by randomized controlled trials, but, currently, it is thought to be very difficult to expect those clinical trials to be successful because there are still a lack of expert surgeons with sound surgical techniques and experience. In addition, lap-PD is so complicated and technically demanding that many surgeons are still questioning whether this surgical approach could be standardized and popular like laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, surgical options are usually chosen based on following question: (1) Is it simple? (2) Is it easy and feasible? (3) Is it secure and safe? (4) Is there any supporting scientific evidence? It would be interesting to estimate which surgical technique would be appropriate in managing remnant pancreas under these considerations. It is hoped that a well standardized multicenter-based randomized control study would be successful to test this fundamental issues based on sound surgical techniques and scientific background.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic resection is a complex procedure that involves exposure of the retroperitoneal gland, dissection around major vascular structures, and management of an intricate organ, all of which results in a procedure associated with a high morbidity. The application of minimally invasive techniques to pancreatic resection have been studied only relatively recently. This analysis of the current concepts in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery focuses on a select look at currently published series or reviews from centers and groups that have the most experience with this procedure. We aim to present a comprehensive review gained from the experiences of those who are on the leading edge of the learning curve, with an emphasis on describing the similarities and differences between the minimally invasive and open pancreatic procedure. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears to be on the verge of widespread acceptance and shows clear benefits over its open counterpart. Minimally invasive proximal (right-sided) pancreatectomy, on the other hand, appears to be limited to select centers that have been able to demonstrate promising results despite its challenges. Additionally, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and enucleation appear feasible as experience is gained in laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic resection.