Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III).

RESULTS

218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III.

CONCLUSION

LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

Advanced laparoscopic HPB surgery: Experience in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

The worldwide trend in surgery has moved from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Likewise, the application of minimally invasive surgery in the hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) field is also rapidly expanding. The field of HBP surgery can be divided into liver, pancreas and biliary fields. Minimally invasive liver surgery is recently developed. However, laparoscopic liver resection in difficult areas is challenging. However, with the accumulation of experiences, laparoscopic liver resection for difficult areas is performed more than before. With more propagation, more and more liver resection will be performed by laparoscopic approach. In minimally surgery for the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy has become a well-recommended procedure in benign and borderline malignancy. There have been several systemic reviews that show advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The reports on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are slowly increasing in spite of technical difficulty, with several systemic reviews showing advantages of the procedure. However, more PD will be performed as robotic-assisted procedures in the future. The laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract malignancy is still in early stages. The laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer has been contraindicated, although there have been encouraging reports from expert centers. The laparoscopic surgery for Klatskin tumor is still an experimental procedure. Robotic-assisted procedures for the surgery of cholangiocarcinoma will be the future. Robotic-assisted surgery for the HBP field is still not well-developed. However, with the necessity of more precise manipulation like intracorporeal suturing, robotic-assisted surgery will be used more often in the field of HBP surgery.

Lending a hand for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the optimal approach?

BACKGROUND

Both minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches for distal pancreatectomy are acceptable. MIS options include total laparoscopic/robotic (TLR) and hand-assist laparoscopy (HAL). When considering safety profile and specimen quality, the optimal approach is unknown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010-2018 at two major academic institutions were included. Converted procedures were categorized into final approach. Ninety-day perioperative/pathologic outcomes of MIS and open were compared. Subset analyses between TLR vs HAL and HAL vs open were performed. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 1006 patients, resection was performed by MIS in 35% (n = 352), open in 65% (n = 654). MIS had similar patient comorbidity profile as open but had increased operative time (183 vs 162 min; p < 0.01), lower estimated-blood-loss (EBL; 131 vs 341 mL; p < 0.01), fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (1.4 vs 5%; p < 0.01), shorter LOS (5.2 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Tumor size was smaller (3.2 vs 4.4 cm; p < 0.01) with lower lymph node (LN) yield (14 vs 16; p < 0.01). When comparing HAL (n = 109) to TLR (n = 243), despite increased prior abdominal operations (60 vs 43%; p = 0.008), HAL had shorter operative time (167 vs 191 min; p < 0.01), similar length-of-stay (LOS; 5.4 vs 5.1 days; p = 0.27), and readmission rate (15 vs 13%; p = 0.47). When comparing HAL to open, the advantages of TLR approach persisted including lower EBL (171 vs 342 mL; p < 0.01), and shorter LOS (5.4 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Although HAL had smaller tumors, it had a similar LN yield (16 vs 16; p = 0.80), and higher R0-rate (97 vs 83%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assist laparoscopy is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy as operative time, complication profile, lymph node yield, and R0-rates are similar to open procedures, while maintaining the associated the advantages of a total laparoscopic/robotic approach with reduced blood loss and shorter length-of-stay.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The current evidence comparing oncological adequacy and effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is inconclusive. Recent pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of stay as the principal advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The aim of this study was to compare the three approaches to distal pancreatectomy conducting a pairwise meta-analysis and consequently network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the databases, EMBASE, Pubmed, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

RDP cohort represented only 11% of the total sample; significantly younger patients with smaller size tumours were included in the RDP and LDP cohorts compared to ODP cohort. Significantly less blood loss and shorter length of stay were the advantages of both RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The ODP cohort included significantly more specimens with positive resection margins compared to RDP and LDP cohorts.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study demonstrate that reduced blood losses and shorter length of stay are the advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. However, demographic discrepancies, underpowered RDP sample and differences in oncological burden do not permit certain conclusions regarding the oncological safety of RDP and LDP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The economic implications of relevant clinicopathologic factors on the surgical approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) should be clearly defined and understood to potentially allow the implementation of cost reduction strategies.

METHODS

Administrative and clinical datasets of patients undergoing a DP between 2012 and 2016 were merged and queried. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinicopathologic predictors of cost differentials for minimally invasive DP (MIDP) relative to open DP (ODP). Time trends in cost were also assessed to identify opportunities for cost containment.

RESULTS

Among two hundred and twenty five patients, 128 underwent an ODP (57%) and 97 a MIDP (43%). The DP groups were comparable with regard to relevant perioperative and disease characteristics. Total hospitalization and total OR costs for MIDP were significantly lower (- 12%, P = 0.0048) and higher (+ 16%, P < 0.0001) respectively, compared to ODP. On univariate analysis, age > 60 (- 12%, P = 0.0262), BMI > 25 (- 10%, P = 0.0222), ASA class ≥ 3 (- 11%, P = 0.0045), OpTime > 230 min (- 16%, P = 0.0004), and T stage ≥ 3 (- 8%, P = 0.0452) were associated with decreased total costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Linear regression analysis revealed that BMI > 25 (Estimate - 0.31, SE 0.15, P = 0.0482), ASA class ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.36, SE 0.17, P = 0.0344), and T stage ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.57, SE 0.26, P = 0.0320) were associated with decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Overtime, total hospitalization cost for MIDP increased from - 21 to 1% (P = 0.0197), while OR costs for MIDP decreased from + 41% to - 2% (P = 0.0049), nearly equalizing the cost differences between ODP and MIDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant clinicopathologic factors predicted decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP relative to ODP. In equivalent stages of disease, optimizing the surgical approach to DP based on specific clinicopathologic characteristics may afford significant cost-saving opportunities.

Perioperative C-reactive protein is associated with pain outcomes after major laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a retrospective analysis

Purpose: This study is aimed to investigate an association between perioperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and both opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores in postoperative days (PODs) in patients who underwent laparoscopic major abdominal surgery. We hypothesized that postoperative opioid requirements and numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores would be positively associated with perioperative CRP levels.

Patients and method: Medical records from 4,653 patients who underwent a laparoscopic major abdominal surgery from January 2010 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Generalized linear regression analysis was used to identify the association of preoperative and postoperative CRP levels, and increase in CRP level (postoperative CRP level – preoperative CRP level) with postoperative pain outcomes during POD 0–3.

Results: An increase of 1 mg dL⁻¹ of postoperative CRP level was significantly associated with 1.4% increase morphine equivalent consumption [exponentiated regression (Exp) coefficient: 0.014, 95% CI (0.011, 0.016), P<0.001], whereas preoperative CRP levels were not significantly associated with morphine equivalent consumption on POD 0–3 (P=0.450). A 1 mg dL⁻¹ of increase in CRP level was significantly associated with 1% increase of morphine equivalent consumption [Exp coefficient: 0.010, 95% CI (0.008, 0.012), P<0.001]. Postoperative CRP levels were positively associated with NRS pain scores on POD 1, POD 2, and POD 3 (P<0.001). Increases of CRP levels were also positively associated with NRS pain scores on POD 0, POD 1, POD2, and POD3 (P<0.05).

Conclusion: These results suggest postoperative CRP levels and increases in CRP levels are positively associated with opioid consumption and higher pain scores after major laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Cost of open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: surgeon perceptions versus the reality of hospital spending

BACKGROUND

Rising health care costs have led to increasing focus on cost containment and accountability from health care providers. We sought to explore surgeon awareness of supply costs for open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

Surveys were sent in 2015 to surgeons at 8 academic hospitals in Toronto who performed distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Respondents were asked to estimate the total cost, type and number of disposable equipment pieces required to perform open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We determined the accuracy of estimates through comparisons with procedural invoices for distal gastrectomy performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2015. All values are in 2015 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Of the 53 surveys sent out, 12 were completed (response rate 23%). Surgeon estimates of total supply costs ranged from $500 to $3000 and from $1500 to $5000 for open and laparoscopic cases, respectively. Estimated supply costs for requested equipment ranged from $464 to $2055 for open cases and from $1870 to $2960 for laparoscopic cases. Invoices for actual equipment yielded a mean of $821 (standard deviation $543) (range $89-$2613) for open cases and $2678 (standard deviation $958) (range $835-$4102) for laparoscopic cases. Estimates of total cost were within 25% of the median invoice total in 1 response (9%) for open cases and 3 (27%) of those for laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSION

Respondents failed to accurately estimate equipment costs. The variation in true total costs and estimates of supply costs represents an opportunity for intraoperative cost minimization, efficient equipment selection and value-based purchasing arrangements.

Splenic vessel patency: is it real menace to perform laparoscopic splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy

Purpose

This study compared the patency of the splenic vessels between laparoscopic and open spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed a database of 137 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 91) or open (n = 46) spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy at a single institute from 2001 through 2015. Splenic vessel patency was assessed by abdominal computed tomography and classified into three grades according to the degree of stenosis.

Results

The splenic artery patency rate was similar in both groups (97.8 vs. 95.7%, P = 0.779). Also, the splenic vein patency rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups (74.7% vs. 82.6%, P = 0.521). Postoperative wound complication was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (19.8% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.006), and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.001) than in the open group. Median follow-up periods were 22 months (3.7–96.2 months) and 31.7 months (4–104 months) in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed good splenic vessel patency as well as open distal pancreatectomy. For this reason, splenic vessel patency is not an obstacle in performing laparoscopic splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Survival outcome and prognostic factors of neoadjuvant treatment followed by resection for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Purpose

Neoadjuvant treatment may provide improved survival outcomes for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment and to identify prognostic factors.

Methods

Forty patients who met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network definition of BRPC and received neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery between 2007 and 2015 were evaluated. Prospectively collected clinicopathological outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The mean age was 61.7 years and the male-to-female ratio was 1.8:1. Twenty-six, 3, and 11 patients received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and FOLFIRINOX, respectively. The 2-year survival rate (2YSR) was 36.6% and the median overall survival (OS) was 20 months. Of the 40 patients, 34 patients underwent resection and the 2YSR was 41.2% while the 2YSR of patients who did not undergo resection was 16.7% (P = 0.011). The 2YSR was significantly higher in patients who had partial response compared to stable disease (60.6% vs. 24.3%, P = 0.038), in patients who did than did not show a CA 19-9 response after neoadjuvant treatment (40.5% vs. 0%, P = 0.039) and in patients who did than did not receive radiotherapy (50.8% vs. 25.3%, P = 0.036). Five patients had local recurrence and 17 patients had systemic recurrence with a median disease specific survival of 15 months.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant treatment followed by resection is effective for BRPC. Pancreatectomy and neoadjuvant treatment response may affect survival. Effective systemic therapy is needed to improve long-term survival since systemic metastasis accounts for a high proportion of recurrence.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a large single-center study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) account for 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. Nonfunctioning PNETs (NF-PNETs) account for 60-90% of all PNETs. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is becoming the treatment of choice for benign lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, LDP has not yet been widely accepted as the gold standard for NF-PNETs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for NF-PNETs.

METHODS

Between April 1995 and September 2016, 94 patients with NF-PNETs underwent open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy at Samsung Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent LDP and those who underwent ODP. Both groups were compared in terms of clinical and oncologic variables.

RESULTS

LDP patients had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared with ODP patients, amounting to a mean difference of 2 days (p < 0.001). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the ODP and LDP groups (p = 0.379). The 3-year overall survival rates in the ODP and LDP groups were 93.7 and 100%, respectively (p = 0.069).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, LDP for NF-PNETs had similar oncologic outcomes compared with ODP. In addition, LDP was associated with a shorter hospital stay compared with ODP. Therefore, LDP is a safe and effective procedure for patients with NF-PNETs. A multicenter study and a randomized controlled trial are needed to better assess the clinical and oncologic outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections: cost and value perspectives

BACKGROUND

The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications.

METHODS

An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR.

RESULTS

Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level.

CONCLUSION

Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients: is it safe?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appears to be safe and effective as open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or borderline malignant lesion. However, studies comparing LDP with ODP in elderly patients are limited. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of these two several approaches in elderly patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out by comparing laparoscopic (n = 7) and open (n = 15) distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients performed at the University of Naples "Federico II" and University of Perugia between January 2012 and December 2015. Demographic data, operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Demographic and tumor characteristics of laparoscopic and ODP were similar. There were also no significant differences in operating room time. Patients undergoing LDP had lower blood loss, first flatus time, diet start time and postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in complication rates or 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

LDP is safe and feasible as ODP in selected elderly patients.

The Health Gain Obtainable from Pancreatic Resection for Adenocarcinoma in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

In treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), age does not represent a contraindication to surgery, even if aging is known to increase postoperative mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, long-term outcome remains poor and there is much debate on whether to operate or not in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to provide a general framework to evaluate the health gain obtainable from surgery for PDAC in relationship with age and tumor stage.

METHODS

A Monte Carlo simulation model was built taking into consideration pertinent literature from population-based studies regarding surgical and non-surgical outcomes for stages I-II PDAC. The health gain obtainable from surgery, in comparison to the choice of not resecting patients, was measured through number needed-to-treat (NNT) calculation.

RESULTS

Considering the typical stage I-II PDAC characteristics, the model showed that the mean lifespan after surgery was 28.1 ± 3.9 months and 9.3 ± 1.5 months after non-surgical therapies. The NNT with surgery in order to prevent one death at 5 years was 6 (95% CI 4-10), indicating an overall high gain obtainable from surgery. Sensitivity analyses on patient age and tumor stage suggested that starting from 76 years onward, the NNT progressively increases, resulting in a low cure rate of surgery in the elderly and becoming potentially harmful for patients aged above 80 years. These figures were more pronounced for tumor stages IIA and IIB.

CONCLUSIONS

The present general framework suggests that the lifespan benefit obtainable from pancreatectomy in elderly patients is uncertain especially with the advancing of the tumor stage.

Impact of a Nationwide Training Program in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy (LAELAPS)

OBJECTIVE

To study the feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Superior outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy have been reported. In the Netherlands (2005 to 2013) only 10% of distal pancreatectomies were in a minimally invasive fashion and 85% of surgeons welcomed MIDP training. The feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program is unknown.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2015, 32 pancreatic surgeons from 17 centers participated in a nationwide training program in MIDP, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring on-site. Outcomes of MIDP before training (2005-2013) were compared with outcomes after training (2014-2015).

RESULTS

In total, 201 patients were included; 71 underwent MIDP in 9 years before training versus 130 in 22 months after training (7-fold increase, P < 0.001). The conversion rate (38% [n = 27] vs 8% [n = 11], P < 0.001) and blood loss were lower after training and more pancreatic adenocarcinomas were resected (7 [10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67). Clavien-Dindo score ≥III complications (15 [21%] vs 19 [15%], P = 0.24) and pancreatic fistulas (20 [28%] vs 41 [32%], P = 0.62) were not significantly different. Length of hospital stay was shorter after training (9 [7-12] vs 7 [5-8] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3% vs 0% (P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

A nationwide MIDP training program was feasible and followed by a steep increase in the use of MIDP, also in patients with pancreatic cancer, and decreased conversion rates. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings.

Appraisal of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Left-Sided Pancreatic Cancer: A Large Volume Cohort Study of 152 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to appraise the value of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for left-sided pancreatic cancer based on a large volume cohort study.

METHODS

We reviewed data for all consecutive patients undergoing LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between December 2006 and December 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 91 male and 61 female patients, with a median age of 62.7 years were included in this study. The median operative duration was 234 minutes. Pathological reports revealed the following: a median tumor size of 3.0 cm (range, 0.4-10.0), T stages (T1 in 7.9%, T2 in 5.3%, T3 in 86.8%, and no T4), the tumor differentiation (well differentiated in 16.4%, moderately differentiated in 75.4%, and poorly differentiated in 8.2%), and R0 resection in 126 patients (82.9%). After pancreatectomy, 96 patients (63.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the median time to chemotherapy was 30 days. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (range, 5-31), and the median time to diet resumption was 1 day. Grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 14 patients (9.2%) and grade II or III complications occurred in 27 (17.7%). The median overall survival was 43.0 months. A Cox proportional hazards model showed that tumor size, N1 stage, combined resection, and incompleteness of planned adjuvant chemotherapy affect patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer is reasonable within selected indications. An international consensus on laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer would be desirable and timely.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

After technological advances and increased experiences, more complicated surgeries including distal pancreatectomy can be easily performed with acceptable oncologic results, and decreased mortality and morbidity. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have several advantages including less blood loss, less hospital stay, less pain. Several studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and LDP resulted that both techniques have similar results according to pancreas fistulas, oncological results, costs and operation indications. Morbidity is very low in high volume centers, for this reason at least ten cases should be performed for the learning curve. Several authors remarked important technical points in LDP in order to perform safe and acceptable LDP in several studies. Here in this review, we aimed to overview the results of previous studies about LDP and discuss the technical points of LDP.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Tumors: Does Size Matter?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for large pancreatic tumors may require prolonged dissection, and this could be associated with increased operative time and intraoperative complications.

METHODS

From a total cohort of 190 consecutive patients undergoing LDP, 18 patients were found to have pancreatic tumors >5 cm and were included in the retrospective study of prospectively collected data. Three techniques were used to approach the splenic vessels: the superior pancreatic, the inferior supracolic and post-pancreatic transection.

RESULTS

Of these 18 patients, 13 were women and 5 were men, the median age was 68 years and their median tumor size 7 cm. Exocrine pancreatic malignancy was diagnosed in 8 patients, 6 patients had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors and 4 patients cystic neoplasm. The median number of resected nodes was 14. R1 resections for exocrine pancreatic malignancies were found in 50% of patients. Morbidity (grade >II) was found in 16.6% of patients and 30 days mortality in 1 patient. Overall median survival was 50 months and 29 months for patients with exocrine pancreatic malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for large tumors, while technically demanding, is possible without additional morbidity and did not compromise short- and long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in pancreatic tumours: a case-control study

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has become an increasingly used procedure in the surgical treatment of benign or borderline cystic and endocrine tumours. The feasibility and safety of this technique is well known but its results when compared with open distal pancreatectomy were rarely reported in literature. Data from 22 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were recorded in a prospective database from January 2006 to January 2010. These patients were matched with 22 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy from January 2000 to December 2005, regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, pancreatic pathology. Intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcome were compared between the two groups. Blood loss, amount of analgesic drugs administered, postoperative mortality and morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate were similar in laparoscopic and open groups. Tumour size was significantly smaller in laparoscopic group (2.0 ± 3.3 vs. 5.0 ± 4.2 cm; P = 0.038). Operative time was significantly shorter in open group (145 ± 49 vs. 225 ± 83 min, P = 0.045). Time to adequate oral intake and length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly better in laparoscopic group than in open group (3.0 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 0.7 days; P = 0.030 and 8.0 ± 1.3 vs. 11.0 ± 3.0 days; P = 0.011, respectively). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a feasible and safe surgical approach as well as open distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

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

LDP vs ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case matched study from a single-institution

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) showed advantage of perioperation outcomes for benign and low-grade tumor of the pancreas. The application of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) didn’t gain popular acceptance and the number of LDP for PDAC remains low. We designed a case-matched study to analysis the short- and long-term outcomes of the patients undergoing either Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy for PDAC.

Method

From 2003 to 2013, 17 patients were underwent LDP and 34 patients were underwent ODP for PDAC were matched by tumor size, age and body mass index (BMI). The two groups’ demographic information, perioperative outcomes and survival data were compared.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the LDP and ODP groups. The intraoperative blood loss, first flatus, first oral intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly less in LDP group than ODP group (50 ml vs400ml, P = 0.000; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.001; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.003; 13d vs 15.5d, P = 0.022). The mean operation time, overall postoperative morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates were similar in the two groups. 5 patients (29.4 %) in LDP group and 7 patients (20.6 %) in ODP group underwent extended resections. There were no significant differences in tumor sizes (3.5 cm vs 3.9 cm, P = 0.664) and number of harvested lymph nodes (9 vs8 P = 0.534). The median overall survival for both groups was 14.0 months. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed extended resections, R1 resection, perineural invasion and tumor differentiation were associated with worse survival.

Conclusion

LDP is technically feasible and safe for PDAC in selected patients and the short-term oncologic outcomes were not inferior to ODP in this small sample study. However the long-term oncologic safety of LDP for PDAC has to be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy with or without Preservation of the Spleen for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare tumor of the pancreas. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a feasible and safe procedure, and successful spleen preservation rates are higher using a laparoscopic approach. We hypothesized that certain patients with SPN would be good candidates for laparoscopic surgery; however, few surgeons have reported laparoscopic DP for SPN. We discuss the preoperative assessment and surgical simulation for two SPN cases. A simulation was designed because we consider that a thorough preoperative understanding of the procedure based on three-dimensional image analysis is important for successful laparoscopic DP. We also discuss the details of the actual laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation that we performed for our two SPN cases. It is critical to use appropriate instruments at appropriate points in the procedure; surgical instruments are numerous and varied, and surgeons should maximize the use of each instrument. Finally, we discuss the key techniques and surgical pitfalls in laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation. We conclude that experience alone is inadequate for successful laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: safe and reasonable?

As a result of technological advances during the past two decades, surgeons now use minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to pancreatic resection more frequently, yet the role of these approaches for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resections remains uncertain, given the aggressive nature of this malignancy. Although there are no controlled trials comparing MIS technique to open surgical technique, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with increasing frequency. Data from retrospective studies suggest that perioperative complication profiles between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are similar, with perhaps lower blood loss and fewer wound infections in the MIS group. Concerning oncologic outcomes, there appear to be no differences in the rate of achieving negative margins or in the number of lymph nodes (LNs) resected when compared to open surgery. There are limited recurrence and survival data on laparoscopic compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but in the few studies that assess long term outcomes, recurrence rates and survival outcomes appear similar. Recent studies show that though laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy entails a greater operative cost, the associated shorter length of hospital stay leads to decreased overall cost compared to open procedures. Multiple new technologies are emerging to improve resection of pancreatic cancer. Robotic pancreatectomy is feasible, but there are limited data on robotic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and outcomes appear similar to laparoscopic approaches. Additionally fluorescence-guided surgery represents a new technology on the horizon that could improve oncologic outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, though published data thus far are limited to animal models. Overall, MIS distal pancreatectomy appears to be a safe and reasonable approach to treating selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, though additional studies of long-term oncologic outcomes are merited. We review existing data on MIS distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Benign or Premalignant Pancreatic Lesions: Is It Really More Cost-Effective than Open Approach?

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the quality of life in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and no studies have reported a real cost-effectiveness analysis of this surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with respect to an open distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Forty-one patients who underwent a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 40 patients who underwent an open distal pancreatectomy were retrospectively studied as regards postoperative results, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Italian neutral version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C-30, version 3.0, was used to rate the quality of life.

RESULTS

Postoperative results were similar in the two groups; the only difference was that the first oral intake took place significantly earlier in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P < 0.001). Regarding quality of life, the laparoscopic approach was able to ameliorate physical functioning (P = 0.049), role functioning (P = 0.044) and cognitive functioning (P = 0.030) and reduce the sleep disturbance scale (P = 0.050). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the acceptability curve for a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than an open distal pancreatectomy when a willingness to pay above 5400 Euros/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was accepted.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the study, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be considered not only safe and feasible but also permits a better quality of life and is acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness to Italian and European health care services.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it's time to randomize

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.

A comparative study of laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery has many advantages, its application in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has not been sufficiently studied. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma.

STUDY DESIGN

Among 167 consecutive patients between December 2006 and August 2013, 150 patients were included. Unmatched and propensity score-matched analyses were performed to compare the primary (oncologic adequacy) and secondary outcomes (hospital course and complications) between ODP and LDP groups.

RESULTS

In unmatched patients, LDP was associated with an earlier return to diet and a shorter hospital stay compared with ODP. The 5-year survival rates were 27.6% in unmatched ODP (n = 80) and 32.5% in unmatched LDP (n = 70). Fifty-one patients from each group were selected by propensity score matching. In this matched patient comparison, LDP was again associated significantly with a shorter median postoperative time to restarting diet and a shorter hospital stay. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of primary outcomes of operative time, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin status, and secondary outcomes of frequency of pancreatic fistula and complications. The 2 groups also had comparable patient survival (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This large single-center study of laparoscopic surgery for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma indicated that LDP was safe and more efficacious than OPD after propensity score adjustment for presurgical variables of return to diet and length of stay.

Costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resection: A systematic review

AIM: To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify all studies published up to 2013 that compared laparoscopic and open liver [laparoscopic hepatic resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR)] and pancreatic [laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) vs open pancreatic resection] resection. The last search was conducted on October 30, 2013.

RESULTS: Four studies reported that LLR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (2972 USD vs 5291 USD). The costs related to equipment (3345 USD vs 2207 USD) and theatre (14538 vs 11406) were reported higher for LLR. The total cost was lower in patients managed by LLR (19269 USD) compared to OLR (23419 USD). Four studies reported that LPR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (6755 vs 9826 USD). The costs related to equipment (2496 USD vs 1630 USD) and theatre (5563 vs 4444) were reported higher for LPR. The total cost was lower in the LPR (8825 USD) compared to OLR (13380 USD).

CONCLUSION: This systematic review support the economic advantage of laparoscopic over open approach to liver and pancreatic resection.

Results of 100 consecutive laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: postoperative outcome, cost-benefit analysis, and quality of life assessment

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been recently proposed as the procedure of choice for lesions of the pancreatic body and tail in experienced centres. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential advantages of LDP in a consecutive series of 100 patients.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was used to identify patients for comparison between LDP and control open group. Match criteria were: age, gender, ASA score, BMI, lesion site and size, and malignancy. All patients were treated according to an early feeding recovery policy. Primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints were operative time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), hospital costs, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Thirty patients of the LDP group had pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 23 patients. Mean operative time was 29 min shorter in the open group (p = 0.002). No significant difference between groups was found in blood transfusion rate and postoperative morbidity rate. LDP was associated with an early postoperative rehabilitation and a shorter LOS in uneventful patients. Economic analysis showed <euro> 775 extra cost per patient of the LDP group. General health perception and vitality were better in the LDP group one month after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy improved short-term postoperative recovery and quality of life in a consecutive series of both cancer and non-cancer patients. Despite the extra cost, the laparoscopic approach should be considered the first option in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Since the first report on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appeared in the 1990s, the procedure has been performed increasingly frequently to treat both benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Many earlier publications have shown LDP to be a good alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for benign lesions, although this has never been studied in a prospective, randomized manner. The evidence for the use of LDP to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is not as well established. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current evidence for LDP in cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We conducted a review of English language publications reporting LDP results between 1990 and 2013. All studies reporting results in patients with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. Thirty-nine publications were found and included in the results for a total of 309 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (potential double publications were not eliminated). Most LDP procedures are performed in selected cases and generally involve smaller tumors than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) procedures. Some of the papers report unselected cases and include procedures on larger tumors. The number of lymph nodes harvested using LDP is comparable to the number obtained with ODP, as is the frequency of R0 resections. Current data suggest that similar short term oncological results can be obtained using LDP as those obtained using ODP.