Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and borderline malignant periampullary disease compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater in a medium-volume center: a propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a medium-volume medical center.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent OPD or LPD for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater (VPC) between January 2017 and June 2022 were acquired retrospectively. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the groups. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Cox regression analysis was used to explore the independent risk factors for DFS.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients with pathologically diagnosed VPC were included. After 1:1 matching, there were 23 cases each in the OPD and LPD groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median DFS in the OPD and LPD groups was identical (16.0 months vs 16.0 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that low levels of alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, positive surgical margin, and lymph node enlargement were independent risk factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

LPD in medium-volume centers with acceptable technical conditions may approach or even achieve the efficacy of LPD in large-volume centers.

What we should consider to facilitate recovery of the hematological profile in all patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the role of preoperative intravenous iron treatment

BACKGROUND

In pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), the duodenum and upper jejunum responsible for iron absorption are removed, which can lead to massive hemorrhage during surgery and cause iron deficiency anemia after PD. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall changes in hematologic profiles of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Effect of preoperative intravenous iron treatment on recovery of anemia after surgery was also investigated.

METHODS

From March 2021 to December 2021, patients who underwent curative PD at our institution due to periampullary lesions were enrolled. They were divided into two groups according to whether or not iron was administered before surgery. In the IV iron group, all patients had been routinely administered with 1000 mg of ferric carboxymaltose intravenously once about 3-7 days before the operation day. Contrarily, patients in the control group did not receive intravenous iron before PD. Changes in hematological profile were measured preoperatively and at 5, 14, and 30 days postoperatively. Clinical results of the two groups were compared and analyzed. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was performed for selected non-anemic patients who had preoperative hemoglobin level of 12.0 g/dl or higher to compare changes in hematologic profiles between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty patients of the IV iron group and 34 patients of the control group were analyzed. Although no difference was observed in postoperative complications or mortality, hemoglobin and iron levels were recovered significantly faster at two weeks postoperatively in the IV iron group than in the control group. Iron levels were significantly higher in the IV iron group throughout the postoperative period. In subgroup analysis conducted for non-anemic patients, hemoglobin levels were recovered significantly faster and maintained higher in the IV iron group throughout the postoperative period, although baseline levels of hemoglobin were similar between the two groups. In addition, the length of intensive care unit stay was significantly shorter in the IV iron group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative intravenous iron treatment might be effective in facilitating recovery of hematologic profiles of patients during the recovery period after PD regardless of the presence of preoperative anemia, thus preventing postoperative iron deficiency anemia.

Completely 3-dimensional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: an analysis of 100 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is increasingly performed in high-volume centers, pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is still the most challenging procedure. Pancreatic anastomotic leakage remains a major complication after PD. Thus, various technical modifications regarding PJ, such as the Blumgart technique, have been attempted to simplify the procedure and minimize anastomotic leakage. Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic systems have been shown to be particularly helpful in performing difficult and precise tasks. We present a modified Blumgart anastomosis in 3D-LPD and investigate its clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 100 patients who underwent 3D-LPD with modified Blumgart PJ from September 2018 to January 2020 was conducted. Data on the preoperative characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative characteristics of the patients were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean operative time and duration of PJ were 348.2 and 25.1 min, respectively. The mean estimated blood loss was 112 mL. The overall rate of postoperative complications over Clavien‒Dindo classification III was 18%. The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 11%. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14.2 days. Only one patient required reoperation (1%), and no patient died in the hospital or 90 days after the operation. High BMI, small main pancreatic duct diameter, and soft pancreatic consistency had a significant influence on the occurrence of CR-POPF.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcome of 3D-LPD with modified Blumgart PJ seems to be comparable to other studies in terms of operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complication incidence. We consider the modified Blumgart technique in 3D-LPD to be novel, reliable, safe, and favorable for PJ in the PD procedure.

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.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Post-operative procalcitonin and C-reactive protein predict pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) is a serious complication following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study aimed to determine if C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) serum levels could be used as early biomarkers to predict CRPF after LPD.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we collected peri-operative data of patients who underwent LPD between January 2019 and November 2019. We compared serum levels of white blood cells (WBC), CRP, and PCT on post-operative days (POD) 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between the CRPF and non-CRPF groups and analyzed the predictive risk factors for CRPF.

RESULTS

Among the 186 patients included in this study, 18 patients (9.7%) developed CRPF, including 15 and 3 patients with grade B and C fistulas, respectively. The mean WBC, CRP, and PCT levels were higher on most PODs in the CRPF group compared to the non-CRPF group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that CRP levels on POD 2, 5, and 7 can predict CRPF development after LPD, with the area under the curve (AUC) value reaching the highest level on POD 2 (AUC 0.794). PCT levels on POD 2, 3, 5, and 7 were highly predictive of CRPF after LPD. The highest AUC value was achieved on POD 3 [PCT > 2.10 ng/ml (AUC 0.951; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 92.9%, P < 0.001)].

CONCLUSIONS

Both CRP and PCT levels can be used to predict CRPF development after LPD, with PCT having a higher predictive value.

Totally laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a demanding operation that has not yet gained popularity. Safety, feasibility, and clinical advantages of LPD in comparison with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) have not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare the short term outcomes of LPD with those of OPD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution between January 2013 and March 2020 were retrieved and analyzed, comparing the short-term postoperative outcomes of LPD and OPD, using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

In the study period, 177 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were selected, 52 of these were LPD. In the LPD group, the conversion rate to OPD was 3.8%. After matching, a total of 50 LPD and 50 OPD were compared. LPD was associated with a shorter length of stay (14 vs 20 days, p = 0.011), decreased blood loss (255 vs 350 ml, p = 0.022), but longer median operative time (590 vs 382.5 min; p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between LPD and OPD in terms of overall complications (56% vs 62%, p = 0.542), severe complications (26% vs 22%, p = 0.640), and postoperative mortality (4% vs 6%, p = 0.646). The groups had similar reoperation rate, pancreatic-specific complications, and readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with the open approach, LPD seems associated to with improved short-term outcomes in terms of hospital stay and blood loss, but with a longer operative time. No difference in morbidity and mortality rate were found in our series.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study in elderly people

The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is safe and feasible for elderly patients. From December 2015 to January 2019, 142 LPD surgeries and 93 OPD surgeries were performed by the same surgeon in the third affiliated hospital of Soochow University. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we retrospectively collected the date of three defined groups: LPD aged < 70 years (group I, 84 patients), LPD aged ≥ 70 years (group II, 56 patients) and OPD aged ≥ 70 years (group III, 28 patients). Baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of group I and group II, group II and group III were compared. Totally, 168 patients were included in this study; 100 cases were men; 68 cases were women; mean age was 67.9 ± 9.5 years. LPD does not perform as well in elderly as it does in non-elderly patients in terms of intraoperative blood loss (300.0 (200.0-500.0) ml vs. 200.0 (100.0-300.0) ml, p = 0.003), proportion of intraoperative transfusion (17.9% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.026) and time to oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 5.0 (3.0-6.0) day, p = 0.036). Operative time, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality were similar in two groups. In elderly patients, when compared with OPD, LPD had the advantage of shorter time to start oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 7.0 (5.0-11.3) day, p = 0.005) but the disadvantage of longer operative time (380.0 (306.3-447.5) min vs. 292.5 (255.0-342.5) min, p < 0.001) and higher hospitalization cost (12447.3 (10,189.7-15,340.0) euros vs. 7251.9 (8994.0-11,717.4) euros, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality. LPD is safe and feasible for elderly people, but we need to consider its high cost and long operative time over OPD.

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 pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

BACKGROUND

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

MAIN BODY

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.

Pitfalls for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Need for a stepwise approach

Because of today's advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative management skills, surgeons are beginning to explore the usefulness of the laparoscopic approach in managing periampullary tumors. However, as a result of its innate complexity and associated high surgery-related complications, its applicability to the general surgical community remains controversial. To date, only retrospective data from high-volume centers support the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (Lap PD) for the treatment of benign conditions and malignant periampullary tumors. In addition, various surgical techniques in terms of port placement, dissection, and reconstruction have evolved in different centers depending on the preferred method commonly used by the surgeon through accumulated experience. In our center, we used a stepwise approach and standardized our surgical technique to overcome this technically demanding procedure. A collaborative implementation of video review and analysis, practice training and simulation, operating room didactics, and strict adherence to our stepwise approach in Lap PD, might potentially improve the surgical skills of young hepatobiliary surgeons and possibly overcome the volume-based learning curve of Lap PD.