Postoperative Bleeding After Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Achilles' Heel?

Exploring the landscape of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: Progress, challenges, and future directions

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas's unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Causes and predictors of unplanned reoperations within 30 days post laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive analysis

Objective

To delineate the risk factors and causes of unplanned reoperations within 30 days following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

Methods

A retrospective study reviewed 311 LPD patients at Ningbo Medical Center Li Huili Hospital from 2017 to 2024. Demographic and clinical parameters were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses, with P < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

Out of 311 patients, 23 (7.4%) required unplanned reoperations within 30 days post-LPD, primarily due to postoperative bleeding (82.6%). Other causes included anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, and afferent loop obstruction. The reoperation intervals varied, with the majority occurring within 0 to 14 days post-surgery. Univariate analysis identified significant risk factors: diabetes, liver cirrhosis, elevated CRP on POD-3 and POD-7, pre-operative serum prealbumin < 0.15 g/L, prolonged operation time, intraoperative bleeding > 120 ml, vascular reconstruction, soft pancreatic texture, and a main pancreatic duct diameter ≤3 mm (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed independent risk factors: pre-operative serum prealbumin < 0.15 g/L (OR = 3.519, 95% CI 1.167-10.613), CRP on POD-7 (OR = 1.013, 95% CI 1.001-1.026), vascular reconstruction (OR = 9.897, 95% CI 2.405-40.733), soft pancreatic texture (OR = 5.243, 95% CI 1.628-16.885), and a main pancreatic duct diameter ≤3 mm (OR = 3.462, 95% CI 1.049-11.423), all associated with unplanned reoperation within 30 days post-LPD (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Postoperative bleeding is the primary cause of unplanned reoperations after LPD. Independent risk factors, confirmed by multivariate analysis, include low pre-operative serum prealbumin, elevated CRP on POD-7, vascular reconstruction, soft pancreatic texture, and a main pancreatic duct diameter of ≤3 mm. Comprehensive peri-operative management focusing on these risk factors can reduce the likelihood of unplanned reoperations and improve patient outcomes.

Radiological classification of the Heidelberg triangle and its application in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancies

BACKGROUND

The TRIANGLE operation benefits patients with pancreatic cancer; however, the Heidelberg triangle, where the operation occurs, contains vessels that can impact safety, especially in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with the TRIANGLE operation. This study aimed to identify Heidelberg triangle vessel types and their implications in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Retrospective collection of radiographic data was performed from January 2017 to April 2023. Three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstructions were performed on patients. Vascular types in the Heidelberg triangle were classified based on named vessels crossing its interior. The impact of these types on surgical outcomes and complications in PD with the TRIANGLE operation was assessed.

RESULTS

Preoperative CT reconstruction was conducted on 184 pancreatic surgery patients. The findings revealed 99 patients (53.8%) with the type I Heidelberg triangle, lacking named vessels crossing the interior. Type II (n = 85, 46.2%), with named vessels crossing the interior, was identified. Among reconstructed patients who underwent PD with the TRIANGLE operation (n = 103), they were categorized as type I (n = 57) or type II (n = 46). The results showed that LPD patients with type II had significantly higher median intraoperative blood loss (300 mL vs. 200 mL, P = 0.030) and mean examined lymph nodes (17.2 ± 7.6 vs. 13.4 ± 5.2, P = 0.019) compared to those with type I. No significant differences were found in operative time or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The presence of named vessels crossing the interior of the Heidelberg triangle was associated with increased intraoperative bleeding during LPD combined with the TRIANGLE operation. Therefore, targeted preoperative planning is required before the operation, thus improving the safety of the TRIANGLE operation in minimally invasive surgery.

Teaching modern pancreatic surgery: close relationship between centralization, innovation, and dissemination of care

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is increasingly moving towards centralization in high-volume centres, supported by evidence on the volume-outcome relationship. At the same time, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established worldwide, and interest in new techniques, such as robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, is growing. Such recent innovations are reshaping modern pancreatic surgery, but they also represent new challenges for surgical training in its current form.

METHODS

This narrative review presents a chosen selection of literature, giving a picture of the current state of training in pancreatic surgery, together with the authors' own views, and in the context of centralization and innovation towards minimally invasive techniques.

RESULTS

Centralization of pancreatic surgery at high-volume centres, volume-outcome relationships, innovation through minimally invasive technologies, learning curves in both traditional and minimally invasive surgery, and standardized training paths are the different, but deeply interconnected, topics of this article. Proper training is essential to ensure quality of care, but innovation and centralization may represent challenges to overcome with new training models.

CONCLUSION

Innovations in pancreatic surgery are introduced with the aim of increasing the quality of care. However, their successful implementation is deeply dependent on dissemination and standardization of surgical training, adapted to fit in the changing landscape of modern pancreatic surgery.

An analysis of risk factors for clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

This study aimed to explore the risk factors of clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (PF) after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The clinical data of 80 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The potential risk factors for PF after LPD were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results from the univariate analyses showed that the pancreatic duct diameter (P < .001), pancreatic texture (P < .001), abdominal infection (P = .002), and reoperation (P < .001) were associated with clinically relevant PF. Results from the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the pancreatic duct diameter (P = .002) and pancreatic texture (P = .016) were significant risk factors for clinically relevant PF. Based on this study, the pancreatic duct diameter and pancreatic texture are independent risk factors for clinically relevant PF after LPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with conflicting results. An IPDMA may give more insight into the differences between LPD and OPD, and could identify high-risk subgroups.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases (October 2019). Out of 1410 studies, three randomized trials were identified. Primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III). Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk subgroups including patients with BMI of ≥25 kg/m2, pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, and malignancy.

RESULTS

Data from 224 patients were collected. After LPD, major complications occurred in 33/114 (29%) patients compared to 34/110 (31%) patients after OPD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.4, P = 0.257). No differences were seen for major complications and 90-day mortality LPD 8 (7%) vs OPD 4 (4%) (adjusted OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-1.3, P = 0.080). With LPD, operative time was longer (420 vs 318 min, p < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean difference -6.97 days). Outcomes remained stable in the high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

LPD did not reduce the rate of major postoperative complications as compared to OPD. LPD increased operative time and shortened hospital stay with 7 days.

Comparison of surgical outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

There is no general consensus on the feasibility and safety of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and whether it increases surgical risks. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and rationality of RPD by comparing perioperative data among open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), and RPD performed in our center in recent years.

METHODS

Clinical data of patients had undergone RPD (n = 32), LPD (n = 21), and OPD (n = 86) in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

RPD required more time for operation (537.2 min vs. 441.5 min, p < 0.001) than OPD did, but less time to remove abdominal drainage tube (12.5 d vs. 17.3 d, p = 0.001). The differences between the RPD group and LPD group were interesting, as the two groups had similar operation time (537.2 min vs. 592.9 min, p = 1.000) and blood loss (482.8 ml vs. 559.5 ml, p > 0.05), but the RPD group had a higher activity of daily living score on postoperative day 3 (35.8 vs. 25.7, p = 0.0017) and a lower rate of conversion to OPD (6.5% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.011). Regarding complications, such as the postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, bile leakage, reoperation, and perioperative mortality, there were no significant differences among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only is RPD feasible and reliable, it also offers significant advantages in that it improves postoperative recovery of skills needed for everyday life, has a low conversion rate to open surgery, and does not increase surgical risks.

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.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Nomogram and a predictive model for postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodectomy

To develop a predictive model and a nomogram for predicting postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). A total of 409 LPD patients that underwent LPD by the same surgical team between January 2014 and December 2020 were included as the training cohort. The preoperative data of patients were statistically compared and analyzed for exploring factors correlated with postoperative hemorrhage. The predictive model was developed by multivariate logistic regression and stepwise (stepAIC) selection. A nomogram based on the predictive model was developed. The discriminatory ability of the predictive model was validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and leave-one-out method. The statistical analysis was performed using R 3.5.1 (www.r-project.org). The predictive model including the risk-associated factors of postoperative hemorrhage was as follows: 2.695843 − 0.63056 × (Jaundice = 1) − 1.08368 × (DM = 1) − 2.10445 × (Hepatitis = 1) + 1.152354 × (Pancreatic tumor = 1) + 1.071354 × (Bile duct tumor = 1) − 0.01185 × CA125 − 0.04929 × TT − 0.08826 × APTT + 26.03383 × INR − 1.9442 × PT + 1.979563 × WBC − 2.26868 × NEU − 2.0789 × LYM − 0.02038 × CREA + 0.00459 × AST. A practical nomogram based on the model was obtained. The internal validation of ROC curve was statistically significant (AUC = 0.7758). The validation by leave-one-out method showed that the accuracy of the model and the F measure was 0.887 and 0.939, respectively. The predictive model and nomogram based on the preoperative data of patients undergoing LPD can be useful for predicting the risk degree of postoperative hemorrhage.

Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Fistula risk score-adjusted comparison of postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate a risk-adjusted comparison of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula POPF (CR-POPF) following laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) using the fistula risk score (FRS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 579 patients who underwent LPD (n = 274) or OPD (n = 305) between 2012 and 2019 at two tertiary hospitals. Using the FRS, the risk was stratified into four categories; negligible, low, intermediate and high risk.

RESULTS

The median FRS was significantly higher in the LPD than in the OPD group (5.4 ± 1.2 vs 3.9 ± 1.8, P < .001). The overall incidence of CR-POPF in the LPD vs OPD groups were 16.4% vs 17.7% (P = .187). When POPF risks were stratified by FRS, CR-POPF following LPD vs OPD in patients with low risk (0% vs 6.3%, P = .294), intermediate risk (16.1% vs 22.9%, P = .053) and high risk (33.3% vs 27.3%, P = .577) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher risk score in the LPD group, the CR-POPF was similar following both procedures in the unadjusted and FRS-risk-adjusted comparisons. The CR-POPF was more significantly affected by patient risk factors such as the soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Before this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Achilles'heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy: reconstruction of the remnant pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is a challenging procedure and is considered the Achilles' heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Multiple techniques of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction have been reported, but the optimal technique remains unclear.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides a brief introduction to the developmental status and major related complications of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction. We reviewed all published literature on the technology of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction within the last 5 years and herein discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different reconstruction methods. We also discuss several details of different reconstruction techniques in terms of their significance to the operation and complications.

EXPERT OPINION

No individual method of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is considered optimal for all conditions. The reconstruction strategy should be based on the surgeon's proficiency with laparoscopic technology and the patient's individual risk factors. Personalized methods of pancreatic reconstruction may more effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticodudenectomy for Periampullary Tumor: Should it be a Routine? A Propensity Score-matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex and challenging procedure even with experienced surgeons. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and surgical and oncological outcomes of LPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

This is a propensity score-matched analysis for patients with periampullary tumors who underwent PD. Patients underwent LPD and matched group underwent OPD included in the study. The primary outcome measure was the rate of total postoperative morbidities. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stay, wound length and cosmosis, oncological outcomes, recurrence rate, and survival rate.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were included in the study (37 LPD and 74 OPD). The conversion rate from LPD to OPD was 4 cases (10.8%). LPD provides significantly shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 10 d; P=0.004), less blood loss (250 vs. 450 mL, P=0.001), less postoperative pain, early oral intake, and better cosmosis. The length of the wound is significantly shorter in LPD. The operative time needed for dissection and reconstruction was significantly longer in LPD group (420 vs. 300 min; P=0.0001). Both groups were comparable as regards lymph node retrieved (15 vs. 14; P=0.21) and R0 rate (86.5% vs. 83.8%; P=0.6). No significant difference was seen as regards postoperative morbidities, re-exploration, readmission, recurrence, and survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is a feasible procedure; it provided a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, earlier oral intake, and better cosmosis than OPD. It had the same postoperative complications and oncological outcomes as OPD.

The inflammatory response after laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy and the association with complications in a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The systemic inflammatory response seen after surgery seems to be related to postoperative complications. A reduction of the inflammatory response through minimally invasive surgery might therefore be the mechanism via which postoperative outcome could be improved. The aim of this study was to investigate if postoperative inflammatory markers differed between laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and if there was a relationship between inflammatory markers and the occurrence of postoperative complications.

METHODS

A side study of the multicenter randomized controlled LEOPARD-2 trial comparing LPD to OPD was performed. Area under the curve (AUC) for plasma inflammatory markers, including interleukin (IL-) 6, IL-8 and C reactive protein (CRP) levels, were determined during the first 96 postoperative hours and compared between LPD and OPD, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 patients were included (18 LPD and 20 OPD). The median AUC of IL-6 was 627 (195-1378) after LPD vs. 338 (175-694)pg/mL after OPD, (p = 0.114). The AUC of IL-8 and CRP were comparable. IL-6 levels were higher in patients with a Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication (634[309-1489] vs. 297 [171-680], p = 0.034) and POPF grade B/C (994 [534-3265] vs. 334 [173-704], p = 0.003). In patients with a POPF grade B/C, IL-6 levels tended to be higher after LPD, as compared to OPD (3533[IQR 1133-3533] vs. 715[IQR 39-1658], p = 0.053).

CONCLUSION

LPD, as compared to OPD, did not reduce the postoperative inflammatory response. IL-6 levels were associated with postoperative complications and pancreatic fistula.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC.

METHODS

The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for PDAC between January 2013 and September 2017 were retrieved. Their postoperative outcomes and survival were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients were included. After a 2:1 matching, 93 cases in the OPD group and 55 in the LPD group were identified. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE), particularly grade B/C DGE, occurred less frequently in the LPD group than in the OPD group (1.8% vs. 36.6%, P < 0.001; 1.8% vs. 22.6%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LPD group than in the OPD group (49.1% vs. 71.0%, P = 0.008), whereas the rates of major complications were similar (10.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.590). In addition, the median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (20.0 vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

LPD was found to be technically feasible with efficacy similar to OPD for patients with PDAC.

Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, P < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, P = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, P < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, P = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, P < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), P < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, P = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, P = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, P = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, P < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open or laparoscopic reconstruction during the learning curve: a multicenter propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPD-OR) has been suggested to lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula reported after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with laparoscopic reconstruction (LPD). Propensity score matched studies are, lacking.

METHODS

This is a multicenter prospective cohort study including patients from 7 Dutch centers between 2014-2018. Patients undergoing LPD-OR were matched LPD patients in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores. Main outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) grade B/C and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included, involving the first procedure for all centers. All 56 patients after LPD-OR could be matched to a patient undergoing LPD. With LPD-OR, the unplanned conversion rate was 21% vs. 9% with LPD (P < 0.001). Median blood loss (300 vs. 400 mL, P = 0.85), operative time (401 vs. 378 min, P = 0.62) and hospital stay (10 vs. 12 days, P = 0.31) were comparable for LPD-OR vs. LPD, as were Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (38% vs. 52%, P = 0.13), POPF grade B/C (23% vs. 21%, P = 0.82), and 90-day mortality (4% vs. 4%, P > 0.99).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity matched cohort performed early in the learning curve, no benefit was found for LPD-OR, as compared to LPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy may improve postoperative recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. However, there are concerns that the extensive learning curve of this complex procedure could increase the risk of complications. We aimed to assess whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy could reduce time to functional recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This multicentre, patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial was performed in four centres in the Netherlands that each do 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually; surgeons had to have completed a dedicated training programme for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and have done 20 or more laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies before trial participation. Patients with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy, without signs of vascular involvement, were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy using a central web-based system. Randomisation was stratified for annual case volume and preoperative estimated risk of pancreatic fistula. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The main objective of the phase 2 part of the trial was to assess the safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (complications and mortality), and the primary outcome of phase 3 was time to functional recovery in days, defined as all of the following: adequate pain control with only oral analgesia; independent mobility; ability to maintain more than 50% of the daily required caloric intake; no need for intravenous fluid administration; and no signs of infection (temperature <38·5°C). This trial is registered with Trialregister.nl, number NTR5689.

FINDINGS

Between May 13 and Dec 20, 2016, 42 patients were randomised in the phase 2 part of the trial. Two patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. Three (15%) of 20 patients died within 90 days after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, compared with none of 20 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on safety data from the phase 2 part of the trial, the data and safety monitoring board and protocol committee agreed to proceed with phase 3. Between Jan 31 and Nov 14, 2017, 63 additional patients were randomised in phase 3 of the trial. Four patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. After randomisation of 105 patients (combining patients from both phase 2 and phase 3), of whom 99 underwent surgery, the trial was prematurely terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of a difference in 90-day complication-related mortality (five [10%] of 50 patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group vs one [2%] of 49 in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group; risk ratio [RR] 4·90 [95% CI 0·59-40·44]; p=0·20). Median time to functional recovery was 10 days (95% CI 5-15) after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus 8 days (95% CI 7-9) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (log-rank p=0·80). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications (25 [50%] of 50 patients after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy vs 19 [39%] of 49 after open pancreatoduodenectomy; RR 1·29 [95% CI 0·82-2·02]; p=0·26) and grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulas (14 [28%] vs 12 [24%]; RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·59-2·22]; p=0·69) were comparable between groups.

INTERPRETATION

Although not statistically significant, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with more complication-related deaths than was open pancreatoduodenectomy, and there was no difference between groups in time to functional recovery. These safety concerns were unexpected and worrisome, especially in the setting of trained surgeons working in centres performing 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually. Experience, learning curve, and annual volume might have influenced the outcomes; future research should focus on these issues.

FUNDING

Grant for investigator-initiated studies by Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited.

Pitfalls of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to abdominal surgical procedures have provided superior outcomes when compared to the open approach and thus have become the standard of care. However, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) presents unique difficulties for both laparoscopic and robotic platforms and remains controversial. Ongoing concerns continue about the minimally invasive approach creating meaningful benefit when system-wide data may suggest MIPD results in increased morbidity and mortality during the learning curve. This treatise explores the current state of MIPD, reviewing the volume and quality of data that supports benefit while contrasting the benefits to the unique challenges associated with MIPD that may lead to unacceptable rates of complications and death. We conclude that in a handful of centers, MIPD confers an iterative but not transformative benefit. Significant barriers to the wide-spread acceptance of MIPD are apparent and persist, including: lack of high level data confirming clinical benefit, well defined patient selection criteria, formal education programs that address challenges of the learning curve, and ultimately value.