Central pancreatectomy for early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center case–control study

Central pancreatectomy: An uncommon but potentially optimal choice of pancreatic resection

Benign, premalignant or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors are increasingly diagnosed owing to the widespread uptake of cross-sectional imaging. Surgical excision is a potential treatment option for these tumors. Pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy are the standard resections for tumors located in the pancreatic head-neck or body-tail, respectively, and not uncommonly sacrifice a significant amount of healthy pancreatic parenchyma. Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing procedure, initially performed by Dagradi and Serio in 1982, in a patient with pancreatic neck insulinoma. Since then, an increasing number of cases are being performed worldwide, either via open or minimally invasive surgical access. Additionally, pancreatic enucleation is reserved for tumors < 3 cm, without involvement of the main pancreatic duct. CP remains an alternative approach in selected cases, albeit in the presence of some controversies, such as its use in early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or metastatic deposits to the central aspect of the pancreas from other malignancies. In recent years, clarity is lacking as regards indications for CP, and despite accumulating evidence in favor of limited resections for suitable pancreatic tumors, no evidence-based consensus guidelines are yet available. Nevertheless, it appears that appropriate patient selection is of paramount importance to maximize the advantages of preservation of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic functions as well as to mitigate the risks of higher complication rates. In this comprehensive review, we explore the role of CP in the treatment of lesions located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas.

Sixteen cases of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumours in the pancreatic neck and proximal body

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyse the outcomes and patient experiences associated with laparoscopic central pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The perioperative data of 16 patients who underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy were retrospectively analysed at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital (Xingning Branch and Eastern Branch) from September 2017 to July 2023.

RESULTS

All surgical procedures were completed without the need for intraoperative conversion to open surgery. In two cases, intraoperative cholangiography was performed, while in four cases, intraoperative fluoroscopic laparoscopic assistance was utilized. The duration of the operations varied from 160 to 360 min, with an average of 281.75 min. The estimated volume of intraoperative bleeding ranged from 50 to 300 mL, with an average of 113.75 mL. The postoperative pathology results revealed that there were two cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, six cases of serous cystic neoplasms, one case of mucinous cystic neoplasm, five cases of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms, and two cases of neuroendocrine tumours. The maximum diameter of the tumours ranged from 3.0 to 5.0 cm, with an average of 3.67 cm. There were no instances of postoperative common bile duct stenosis or biliary leakage. Among the cases, five did not exhibit pancreatic fistula, six experienced biochemical leakage, three had grade B pancreatic fistula, and two had grade C pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy, as a method to preserve pancreatic function, entails specific surgical risks and a notable likelihood of postoperative pancreatic fistula, necessitating the expertise of seasoned surgeons for its execution.

Recent trends in organ-preserving pancreatectomy: Its problems and clinical advantages compared with other standard pancreatectomies

In this review article, we focus on recent papers on organ-preserving pancreatectomy procedures published since 2010. When comparing central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), most studies have concluded that the CP group exhibited significantly lower incidence of new-onset diabetes or diabetes exacerbation than the DP group postoperatively. However, because of increased incidence of morbidities such as pancreatic fistula, the surgeon faces a considerable trade-off between increased short-term morbidity and long-term preservation of endocrine function. When the outcomes of two types of spleen-preserving DP (Kimura and Warshaw procedures) are compared, most studies mentioned the low incidence of postoperative gastric varices and splenic infarction with the Kimura procedure. Although there are several reports regarding the effect of spleen preservation on prevention of postoperative infections, no report on the contribution of spleen preservation to the prevention of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection is seen. The advantages of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) concerning endocrine and exocrine functions continue to be subjects of discussion, mainly due to the limited number of institutions that have adopted this approach; however, DPPHR should be presented as an option for patients due to its low incidence of postoperative cholangitis. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy requires meticulous surgical techniques, and postoperative complications may increase with this surgery compared with standard pancreatectomy, which may be influenced by the surgeon's skill and the surgical facility where the procedure is performed. Nonetheless, this technique has significant long-term advantages in terms of endocrine and exocrine functions and its wider adoption in the future is expected.

Central pancreatectomy might be an acceptable surgical procedure for clinical T1 pancreatic body ductal adenocarcinoma: A multicenter retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is accepted as a function-preserving procedure for benign tumors. However, the indication of CP for pancreatic cancers is limited. This multicenter study aimed to clarify the indications of CP for clinical T1 pancreatic body cancer.

METHODS

This multicenter study analyzed patients who underwent CP or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for clinical T1 pancreatic body cancer between 2013 and 2020 at three high-volume centers.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were enrolled: nine patients, who underwent CP, were classified into the CP group, while 38 patients, who underwent DP, served as controls. Three patients converted CP to DP during operation were excluded. Five patients in the CP group and 15 patients in the control group underwent preoperative treatment. The 5-year survival rate was 100% in the CP group, and 42% (p = .040) in the control group. Recurrence was found in three patients in the CP group. Importantly, insulin was not required after surgery in patients in the CP group.

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes of CP were comparable to or even better than that of conventional pancreatectomy. Our collaborative study suggests that CP may be an acceptable therapeutic option for selected patients with clinical T1 pancreatic body cancer.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck

AIMS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP.

METHODS

In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

Is central pancreatectomy an effective alternative to distal pancreatectomy for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors: A 20-year single-center propensity score-matched case-control study

Backgrounds/Aims

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is associated with a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and it is less preferred over distal pancreatectomy (DP). We compared the short- and long-term outcomes between CP and DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors.

Methods

This was a propensity score-matched case-control study of patients who underwent either CP or DP for low-grade pancreatic neck and body tumors from 2003 to 2020 in a tertiary care unit in southern India. Patients with a tumor >10 cm or a distal residual stump length of < 4 cm were excluded. Demographics, clinical profile, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the long-term postoperative outcomes for exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, weight gain, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire were compared.

Results

Eighty-eight patients (CP: n=37 [cases], DP: n=51 [control]) were included in the unmatched group after excluding 21 patients (meeting exclusion criteria). After matching, both groups had 37 patients. The clinical and demographic profiles were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss and POPF rates were significantly higher in the CP group. However, Clavien-Dindo grades of complications were similar between the two groups (p = 0.27). At a median follow-up of 38 months (range = 187 months), exocrine sufficiency was similar between the two groups. Endocrine sufficiency, weight gain, SF-36 pain control score, and general health score were significantly better in the CP group.

Conclusions

Despite equivalent clinically significant morbidities, long-term outcomes are better after CP compared to DP in low-grade pancreatic body tumors.

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP).

METHODS

Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM.

CONCLUSION

LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

Nomogram predicts CR-POPF in open central pancreatectomy patients with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic neoplasms

Introduction

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a standard surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic neoplasms in the body and neck of the pancreas. Higher incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after CP than after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) has been reported, but no nomogram for prediction of CR-POPF after open CP has been previously established.

Methods

Patients undergoing open CP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic neoplasms in the department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic (HBP) surgery of Shanghai Changhai Hospital affiliated to Naval Medical University between January 01, 2009 and December 31,2020 were enrolled. Pre-, intra- and post-operative parameters were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

A total of 194 patients, including 60 men and 134 women, were enrolled with median age of 52 years (21~85 years). 84 patients (43.3%) were overweight (BMI>23.0 Kg/m2) and 14 (7.2%) were obese (BMI>28.0 Kg/m2). Pathological diagnoses ranged from serous cystic neoplasm (32.5%), solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (22.2%), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (20.1%), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (18.0%) to mucinous cystic neoplasm (5.2%). All patients had soft pancreatic texture. Main pancreatic duct diameters were ≤0.3cm for 158 patients (81.4%) and were ≥0.5cm in only 12 patients (6.2%). A stapler (57.7%) or hand-sewn closure (42.3%) were used to close the pancreatic remnant. The pancreatic anastomosis techniques used were duct to mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ)-interrupted suture (47.4%), duct to mucosa PJ-continuous suture (43.3%), duct to mucosa "HO" half-purse binding PJ (5.2%) and invaginating pancreaticogastrostomy (4.1%). Post-surgical incidences of CR-POPF of 45.9%, surgical site infection of 28.9%, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage of 7.7% and delayed gastric emptying of 2.1% were found. Obesity and pancreatic anastomosis technique were independent risk factors of CR-POPF, with a concordance index of 0.675 and an Area Under the Curve of 0.678.

Discussion

This novel nomogram constructed according to obesity and pancreatic anastomosis technique showed moderate predictive performance of CR-POPF after open CP.

Undifferentiated Carcinoma of Pancreas with Osteoclast-Like Giant Cells: One Center’s Experience of 13 Cases and Characteristic Pre-Operative Images

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.

RESULTS

Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Systematic review of the incidence and risk factors for chyle leak after pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The incidence of and risk factors for chyle leak, as defined by the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, remain unknown.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for studies of patients undergoing pancreatectomy that reported chyle leak according to the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery definition. The primary outcomes were the incidence of overall and clinically relevant chyle leak. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis was used to calculate the incidence of chyle leak.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies including 7,083 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted incidence of overall chyle leak was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 5.6-8.2), and clinically relevant chyle leak was 5.5% (95% confidence interval 3.8-7.7). Pancreaticoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy, and distal pancreatectomy were associated with a CL incidence of 7.3%, 4.3%, and 5.8%, respectively. Fourteen individual risk factors for chyle leak were identified from included studies. Younger age, low prognostic nutritional index, para-aortic node manipulation, lymphatic involvement, and post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis were significantly associated with chyle leak, all from individual studies.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of overall chyle leak and clinically relevant chyle leak after pancreatic surgery, as defined by the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, is 6.8% and 5.5%, respectively. Several risk factors for chyle leak were identified in the present review; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to more accurately define these risks.

Multivisceral central pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: A case report on a novel surgical technique

INTRODUCTION

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is considered a viable alternative to subtotal distal pancreatectomy, for lesions involving the neck or proximal pancreatic body. Multivisceral central pancreatectomy (MVCP) for locally advanced tumors of the pancreatic body remains unreported.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We hereby report a case of locally advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET) with gastric involvement. The patient underwent successful central pancreatectomy with subtotal gastrectomy for locally advanced NET of the pancreas. In the follow up period, relevant complications like pancreatic insufficiency or pancreatic fistula were not encountered. The patient is doing well more than ten months after resection.

DISCUSSION

A MVCP can be considered in patients with limited pancreatic involvement, as long as sufficient pancreatic parenchyma can be preserved. Additional organ involvement mandating resection should not be considered a contra indication to this procedure. With careful surgical planning and meticulous technique, risk of post operative complications after MVCP can be minimized with added benefit of long term endocrine and exocrine integrity.

CONCLUSIONS

CP is a viable alternative and can be performed with adjacent organ resection, with acceptable post operative outcomes.

Central pancreatectomy: a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers.

METHODS

A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.