Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Spleen Preservation in Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Distal Pancreas: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) are rare tumors of the pancreas that are typically low-grade but may carry malignant potential. While concurrent splenectomy is recommended for oncologic resection of malignant distal pancreas tumors, this is not well-described for SPN. This study evaluates the outcomes of spleen preservation for distal pancreas SPN.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted for adult patients with SPN who underwent surgical resection at a single tertiary center (2010-2023). Distal tumors were located within the pancreatic body or tail. Patient factors and outcomes were compared between those who underwent spleen-preserving (SP) versus nonspleen-preserving (NSP) distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

In total, 52 patients underwent surgery for SPN. Thirty six had localized distal pancreatic tumors and underwent distal/subtotal pancreatectomy: 25 (69%) were SP and 11 (31%) were NSP. Overall, median age was 31 y, 86% were female, and 61% were symptomatic at diagnosis. Median tumor size (4.9 cm SP versus 6.0 cm NSP, P = 0.469) and number of lymph nodes examined (6 SP versus 11 NSP, P = 0.241) were similar. The majority of SP operations were completed minimally invasively via laparoscopic or robotic approaches (84% SP versus 36% NSP, P = 0.008). There was no difference in operative time, complications, length of stay, or readmission between groups. Neither cohort had recurrence of SPN at median follow-up of 3 y.

CONCLUSIONS

SP pancreatectomy can be performed safely for distal SPN with excellent long-term oncologic outcomes. This technique may be achieved minimally invasively and should be considered for localized SPN in the body or tail of the pancreas.

Propensity score-matching analysis of retrograde artery first approach pancreatosplenectomy versus radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

'Shoulder' pancreatic cancer is a challenging situation owing to its close proximity to the branches of the celiac artery and portal vein (PV). A pioneering study demonstrated the feasibility of retrograde artery first approach pancreatosplenectomy (RAFAPS) in treating 'shoulder' pancreatic cancer. However, comparative studies on this topic are lacking.

METHODS

In this single-centre cohort study, we retrospectively enrolled consecutive 'shoulder' pancreatic cancer cases from September 2019 to May 2023. Based on propensity score-matching analysis, we compared the safety and short-term oncological outcomes between RAFAPS and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers. The primary outcome was a negative retroperitoneal margin rate.

RESULTS

In total, 135 (17.0%) 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers were identified among 794 pancreatic cancers during the study period. After matching based on body mass index, tumour size, distance from the right edge of the tumour to the left wall of the PV, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a cohort of 78 patients was selected for analysis (1:1 match, 39 per group). Invasion of splenic vein, splenic artery and PV were found in 40 (51.3%), 28 (35.9%) and 23 (29.5%) patients, respectively. RAFAPS was associated with a higher rate of negative retroperitoneal margins (100% vs 84.6%; relative risk = 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.034-1.351; P = 0.025) and less estimated blood loss (150 vs 300 ml; estimated difference: - 100 ml, 95% CI: - 200-0; P = 0.039) when compared to that of RAMPS.

CONCLUSION

RAFAPS is a safe and effective alternative to RAMPS for managing 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers in a minimally invasive era, with decreased blood loss and favourable retroperitoneal margin.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres.

METHODS

This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP.

RESULTS

During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

Robot-assisted approach using a laparoscopic articulating vessel-sealing device versus pure-robotic approach during distal pancreatectomy

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a minimally invasive approach to left-sided pancreatic tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the robot-assisted approach (RAA) using a laparoscopic articulating vessel-sealing device (LAVSD) during RDP by comparing it with the pure-robotic approach (PRA). Among 62 patients who underwent RDP between April 2020 and December 2023 at Fujita Health University, 22 underwent RAA (the RAA group). In RAA, console surgeons mainly prepared the surgical fields, and assistant surgeons actively dissected the adipose and connective tissues using LAVSD. The surgical outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 40 consecutive patients who underwent RDP with PRA. In total, 28 males and 34 females with a median age of 71 years were analyzed. The console surgeon's prior experience of performing RDP was similar between the groups (RAA; median, 6 [range, 0-36], PRA; median, 5.5 [range, 0-34] cases). The operation time was significantly shorter in the TST group (median, 300.5 [range, 202-557] vs. 363.5 [range, 230-556] min, p = 0.015). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3a) occurred less frequently in the RAA group (4.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.028). Although the median postoperative hospital stay was slightly shorter in the RAA group (median, 12 [range, 8-38] vs. 14.5 [8-44] days, p = 0.095), no statistically significant difference was observed. Compared with PRA, RAA using LAVSD is found to be safe and feasible in introducing RDP for operators with little experience.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

METHODS

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

CONCLUSION

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the 2020s: Recent Institutional Experience and a Narrative Review of Current Evidence

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit's data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit's data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

Importance

Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.

Objective

To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.

Exposures

The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.

Results

From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.

Conclusion and Relevance

In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Learning curves in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a different experience for each generation

BACKGROUND

Learning curves of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are mostly based on 'self-taught' surgeons who acquired sufficient proficiency largely through self-teaching. No learning curves have been investigated for 'trained' surgeons who received training and built on the experience of the 'self-taught' surgeons. This study compared the learning curves and outcome of LDP between 'self-taught' and 'trained' surgeons in terms of feasibility and proficiency using short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with benign or malignant disease of the left pancreas who underwent LDP by four 'self-taught' and four 'trained' surgeons between 1997 and 2019 were collected, starting from the first patient operated by a contributing surgeon. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analyses were performed to determine phase-1 feasibility (operative time) and phase-2 proficiency (major complications) learning curves. Outcomes were compared based on the inflection points of the learning curves.

RESULTS

The inflection points for the feasibility and proficiency learning curves were 24 and 36 procedures for 'trained' surgeons compared to 64 and 85 procedures for 'self-taught' surgeons, respectively. In 'trained' surgeons, operative time was reduced after completion of the learning curves (230.5-203 min, P= 0.028). In 'self-taught' surgeons, operative time (240-195 min, P ≤0.001), major complications (20.6-7.8%, P= 0.008), and length of hospital stay (9-5 days, P ≤0.001) reduced after completion of the learning curves.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective international cohort study showed that the feasibility and proficiency learning curves for LDP of 'trained' surgeons were at least halved as compared to 'self-taught' surgeons.

Predictors of postoperative complications and readmissions in laparoscopic pancreas resection: Results of a cohort 105 consecutive cases. A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas (LRP) has been implemented to a varying degree because it is technically demanding and requires a long learning curve. In the present study we analyze the risk factors for complications and hospital readmissions in a single center study of 105 consecutive LRPs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using a prospective database. Data were collected on age, gender, BMI, ASA score, type of surgery, histologic type, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, degree of severity and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

The cohort included 105 patients, 63 females and 42 males with a median age and BMI of 58 (53-70) and 25.5 (22,2-27.9) respectively. Eighteen (17%) central pancreatectomies, 5 (4.8%) enucleations, 81 (77.6%) distal pancreatectomies and one total pancreatectomy were performed. Fifty-six patients (53.3%) experienced some type of complication, of which 13 (12.3%) were severe (Clavien-Dindo > IIIb) and 11 (10.5%) patients were readmitted in the first 30 days after surgery. In the univariate analysis, age, male gender, ASA score, central pancreatectomy and operative time were significantly associated with the development of complications (P <0.05). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR 7.97; 95% CI 1.08-58.88)), severe complications (OR 59.40; 95% CI, 7.69-458.99), and the development of intrabdominal collections (OR 8.97; 95% CI, 1.28-63.02)) were associated with hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, male gender, ASA score, operative time and central pancreatectomy are associated with a higher incidence of complications. Male gender, severe complications and intraabdominal collections are associated with more hospital readmissions.

Blood loss in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be underestimated

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has an advantage in reducing blood loss over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This study was performed to investigate whether blood loss is truly reduced in LDP.

METHODS

A total of 113 patients undergoing DP from 2014 to 2022 were classified into Open and LDP groups and compared by statistical analysis. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was calculated from the perioperative changes in the hematocrit, hemoglobin, or red blood cell volume, and actual blood loss (ABL) was taken from the operative record.

RESULTS

ABL was significantly lower in the LDP than ODP group (50[5-1350] vs 335 [5-1950] ml, P < .01). However, there were no significant differences in EBL calculated from the hematocrit (406 [66-1990] vs 540 [23-1490] ml, P = .14), hemoglobin, or red blood cell volume. EBL showed more linear correlations with ABL in the ODP group (r = 0.64-0.73) than in the LDP group (r = 0.52-0.57). In the multivariate analysis for ABL, ODP (P = .02) and operative time (P < .01) were significant factors. In contrast, no significant factors were found for EBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative blood loss may be underestimated in LDP, and a new evaluation method needs to be established.

Textbook outcomes and benchmarks of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy across North America

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approach represents the gold standard for the resection of the left lateral section of the liver. Recently, the American Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) registry has become available to track outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic liver resection in the Americas. The aim of the present study is to determine the benchmark performance of MILLS throughout the AMILES database.

METHODS

The AMILES registry was interrogated for cases of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies (MILLS). Centers with best practices according to the achievement of textbook outcomes (TOs) were identified and were used to define benchmark performances.

RESULTS

Seven institutions from US and Canada entered 1665 minimally invasive liver resections, encompassing 203 MILLS. Overall, 49% of cases of MILLS satisfied contemporarily all textbook outcomes. While all centers obtained TOs with different rates of success, the outcomes of the top-ranking centers were used for benchmarking. Benchmark performance metrics of MILLS across North America are: conversion rate ≤ 3.7%, blood loss ≤ 200 ml, OR time ≤ 199 min, transfusion rate ≤ 4.5%, complication rate ≤ 7.9%, LOS ≤ 4 days.

CONCLUSION

Benchmark performances of MILLS have been defined on a large multi-institutional database in North America. As more institutions join the collaboration and more prospective cases accrue, benchmark for additional procedures and approaches will be defined.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Chinese expert consensus on minimally invasive radical surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (version 2022)

Various types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery have been carried out in the last decades with promising outcomes reported by early explorers. Nevertheless, there are still controversies on oncologic outcomes and safety in the use of minimally invasive radical surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This consensus, referring to Chinese expert opinions and worldwide researches, aimed to discuss the related issues on minimally invasive radical surgery for PDAC to ensure the perioperative and oncological outcomes. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated based on the GRADE approach. The 15 recommendations covered 5 topics: oncological outcomes and patient safety of laparoscopic and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, left-side pancreatectomy for PDAC, learning curve, safety of neoadjuvant therapy, and vascular resection in minimally invasive radical surgery for PDAC. This consensus gives reference and guidance to surgeons on the use of minimally invasive radical surgery for PDAC. Although this consensus is not sufficient to answer all the questions about minimally invasive radical surgery for PDAC, it represents the current consensus on the application of the techniques in the treatment of PDAC on the Chinese mainland.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: A propensity score analysis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy, its benefits with regard to the short-term outcomes of distal pancreatectomy remain unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a Japanese nationwide inpatient database, we identified patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 6647) and open (n = 21,843) distal pancreatectomy between July 2012 and March 2020. We conducted a 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis with adjustment for background characteristics (e.g., comorbidities, preoperative diagnosis, and hospital background) to compare in-hospital morbidity and mortality, reoperation requirement, duration of anesthesia and drainage, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. For sensitivity analyses, we performed overlap propensity score-weighted analysis, instrumental variable analysis, and subgroup analyses for hospital volume, patients with benign tumors, and those with malignant tumors that required splenectomy.

RESULTS

In-hospital morbidity and mortality were 27% and 0.7%, respectively. The 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis showed that compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with lower in-hospital morbidity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.78 [0.73 to 0.84]) and mortality (0.26 [0.14 to 0.50]), lower occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (0.78 [0.72 to 0.85]), postoperative bleeding (0.59 [0.51 to 0.69]), and reoperation (0.65 [0.58 to 0.75]), longer duration of anesthesia (difference, 59 [56 to 63] minutes), shorter duration of drainage (difference, -4.0 [-4.5 to -3.6] days) and postoperative length of stay (difference, -4.4 [-4.9 to -3.9] days), and lower total hospitalization costs (difference, -1510 [-1776 to -1243] US dollars). The sensitivity analyses showed compatible results with those from the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large nationwide cohort, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed lower in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and total hospitalization costs than open distal pancreatectomy. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may be a favorable procedure in terms of both complications and costs.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Chronologic changes in the trends and clinical outcomes through a 15-year, single-center experience with 2212 patients

BACKGROUND

We identified the chronologic changes in the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for left-sided pancreatic tumors in a single high-volume center over a period of 15 years.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2019, 2212 patients underwent planned MIDP. Chronologic changes were analyzed according to 5-year intervals (P1, P2, P3). Furthermore, we assessed the prognostic factors of open conversion and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

MIDP has steadily increased during the last 15 years when compared to open distal pancreatectomy, from 10.8% to 84.9%. Also, MIDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been steadily increasing from 5.6% to 68.4%. According to the 5-year intervals, lengths of hospital stay decreased, but age and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) ≥3 increased; conversely, the rates of Clavien-Dindo classification ≥grade 3 (9.5%) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (39.7%) showed no differences. The 90-day mortality and open conversion rates were 0.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed malignancy and extended pancreatectomy were risk factors for open conversion. Furthermore, the poor prognostic factors for severe complications were malignancy, extended pancreatectomy, and ASA ≥3.

CONCLUSION

MIDP has become a popular procedure not only for benign cases but also for malignant ones. However, well-organized training, experience and skill are necessary, especially for poor-performance patients and extensively malignant conditions.

Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear.

METHODS

The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined.

RESULTS

Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.

Considerations in laparoscopic resection of giant pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Background:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with (LDPS) or without splenectomy for cystic tumours in the body and tail has become the standard of care. Data on patients with large tumours of the body and tail of the pancreas are sparse.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who were managed with laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cystic neoplasm since 2010 was done. Patients with cysts more than 8 cm were analysed. Clinical presentation, imaging, details of the surgical procedure and the outcomes were looked into.

Results:

Five patients of giant pancreatic cystic neoplasm (GPCN) were managed with LDPS. Four patients were female, mean age was 45 years (range 15–69 years). The mean cyst size was 11.2 cms (range 8–15 cm). The splenic vein was either stretched or thrombosed in all patients. Three patients had sinistral portal hypertension. All patients were operated with a modified five-port placement. None of the patients required conversion. Mean operative duration was 3½ h, blood loss was 80 ml approximately and none required a blood transfusion. One patient had a biochemical leak. All patients were discharged from the hospital by 3^rd postoperative day. Drain removal was done before discharge except in the patient with biochemical leak (removed on day 6). On a median follow-up of 89 months (range 1–120 months), two patients developed diabetes. There has been no Overwhelming post-splenectomy infections (OPSI).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible in patients with GPCN and offers the all the short-term benefits, namely lesser pain, no wound infections, early return of bowel activity, early return to orals and early discharge and early return to work. Splenectomy was required in all patients because of splenic vein thrombosis and portal hypertension in three and for technical reasons in the rest.

Precision vascular anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasingly performed worldwide; however, the surgical anatomy required to safely perform MIDP has not yet been fully considered. This review evaluated the literature concerning peripancreatic vascular anatomy, which is considered important to conduct safe MIDP.

METHODS

A database search of PubMed and Ichushi (Japanese) was conducted. Qualified studies investigating the anatomical variations of peripancreatic vessels related to MIDP were evaluated using SIGN methodology.

RESULTS

Of 701 articles yielded by our search strategy, 76 articles were assessed in this systematic review. The important vascular anatomy required to recognize MIDP included the pancreatic parenchymal coverage on the root and the running course of the splenic artery, branching patterns of the splenic artery, confluence positions of the left gastric vein and the inferior mesenteric vein, forms of pancreatic veins including the centro-inferior pancreatic vein, characteristics of the left renal vein, and collateral routes perfusing the spleen following Warshaw's technique. Very few articles evaluating the relationship between the anatomical variations and surgical outcomes of MIDP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The precise knowledge of peripancreatic vessels is important to adequately complete MIDP. More detailed anatomic analyses and descriptions will benefit surgeons and their patients who are facing these operations.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis

The laparoscopic approach is considered as standard practice in patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms. However, only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching (PSM) studies have been performed. Thus, additional studies are needed to obtain more robust evidence. This is a single-centre propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent laparoscopic (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) with splenectomy for pancreatic neoplasms. Demographic, intra, postoperative and oncological data were collected. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the operative findings, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes (only in the subset of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-PDAC) and total costs. In total, 205 patients were analysed: 105 (51.2%) undergoing an open approach and 100 (48.8%) a laparoscopic approach. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 75 patients were analysed and showed a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.001), a lower blood loss (P = 0.032), a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) and decreased total costs (P = 0.050) after LDP with respect to ODP. Regarding the subset of patients with PDAC, 22 patients were analysed: they showed a significant shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.050) and a reduction in postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) after LDP with respect to ODP. Oncological outcomes were similar. LDP showed lower hospital stay and postoperative morbidity rate than ODP both in the entire population and in patients affected by PDAC. Total costs were reduced only in the entire population. Oncological outcomes were comparable in PDAC patients.

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.

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Division of the pancreas at the neck reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of pancreatic division at the body

BACKGROUND

objectives: During laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the optimal site for pancreatic division with consideration of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is unclear. We evaluate which site of pancreatic division, neck or body, has better outcomes after LDP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study. LDP was performed in 102 consecutive patients between December 2009 and May 2020. After excluding 14 patients with pancreatic division at tail, 88 patients (pancreatic division at neck n = 46, at body n = 42) were included in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes after LDP were compared between pancreatic division at neck and body.

RESULTS

The pancreatic transection site was thicker at body than at neck (17.5 vs. 11.9 mm, P < 0.001), although there were no significant differences of pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size. The Grade B/C POPF rate was significantly higher when the pancreas was divided at body than when divided at neck (21.4 vs. 6.5%, P = 0.042). We found no significant differences between pancreatic division at neck and body in residual pancreatic volume (34.0 vs. 34.8 ml, P = 0.855), incidence of new-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus more than six months after LDP (P = 0.218), or body weight change (six-month: P = 0.116, one-year: P = 0.108, two-year: P = 0.195, tree-year: P = 0.131, four-year: P = 0.608, five-year: P = 0.408).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the pancreatic division at neck might reduce the Grade B/C POPF incidence after LDP, compared to division at body. A potential reason is that the pancreas at body is thicker than that at neck. However, further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

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.

Retrograde artery first approach for "shoulder" pancreatic cancers in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

"Shoulder" pancreatic cancer, defined as tumor located at the confluence where the splenic vein meets the portal vein, has specific adjacent anatomies. It's difficult to resect this type of tumor with adequate regional lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

We described a new concept of "shoulder" pancreatic cancer, and retrospectively analyzed eleven consecutive cases from September 2019 to April 2020, to assess the safety and efficacy of the retrograde artery first approach in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. The primary outcome was set as radical (R0) resection rate.

RESULTS

All of the 11 cases achieved R0 resection, with a median of 8 (range 5-32) lymph nodes harvested, given the ratio of embraced splenic vein in 72.7% of the cases, splenic artery embracement in 45.5%, and SMV-PV wall invasion in 27.3%. The maximum tumor size on pathology was 35 (range 20-65) mm. The median operative time was 260 (range 155-470) min, and the median estimated blood loss was 200 (range 50-1000) ml. One case needed intraoperative transfusion. One grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred accompanied with abdominal infection, while the rest of cases recovered uneventful. The median postoperative length of stay was 9 (range 6-20) days.

CONCLUSIONS

"Shoulder" pancreatic cancers are clinically significant. Retrograde artery first approach is a potentially safe and effective alternative to achieve a radical resection margin for shoulder pancreatic cancers in minimally invasive era. More evidences are needed in the future.

Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial

Background

Studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss and recovery. Only one randomized study is available, which showed enhanced functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP.

Methods

Consecutive patients evaluated at a multidisciplinary tumour board and planned for standard distal pancreatectomy were randomized prospectively to LDP or ODP in an unblinded, parallel-group, single-centre superiority trial. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital stay.

Results

Of 105 screened patients, 60 were randomized and 58 (24 women, 41 per cent) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; there were 29 patients of mean age 68 years in the LDP group and 29 of mean age 63 years in the ODP group. The main indication was cystic pancreatic lesions, followed by neuroendocrine tumours. The median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (i.q.r. 4–5) days in the laparoscopic group versus 6 (5–7) days in the open group (P = 0·002). Functional recovery was attained after a median of 4 (i.q.r. 2–6) versus 6 (4–7) days respectively (P = 0·007), and duration of surgery was 120 min in both groups (P = 0·482). Blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery: median 50 (i.q.r. 25–150) ml versus 100 (100–300) ml in the open group (P = 0·018). No difference was found in the complication rates (Clavien–Dindo grade III or above: 4 versus 8 patients respectively). The rate of delayed gastric emptying and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

LDP is associated with shorter hospital stay than ODP, with shorter time to functional recovery and less bleeding. Registration number: ISRCTN26912858 (www.isrctn.com).

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.