Pure laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy: single-center experience with 13 cases

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.

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.

Resection of the splenic vessels during laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is safe and does not compromise preservation of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of low potential malignant diseases is increasingly frequent, and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy can be indicated in these patients. Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy that usually preserves the splenic vessels results in a low risk of new-onset diabetes but high morbidity, mainly due to postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. In this study, we evaluated the short and long-term complications after laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included 650 laparoscopic pancreatic resections from 2008 to 2020 with 84 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy; 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection; and 69 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels. Pancreaticogastrostomy was routinely performed, and the patients were discharged after complications had been treated. The 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and tumor characteristics [1:2] and compared with 30 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with the preservation of the splenic vessels.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group, resection of splenic vessels was performed due to tumoral or inflammatory adhesions (n = 11) or accidental vascular injury (n = 4). The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Tumors were larger in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group (40 vs 21 mm; P = .008), and right transection on the body of the pancreas (53% vs 13%; P = .01) was more frequent. There were no differences in the characteristics of the pancreas (Wirsung duct size or consistency). The median operative time (minutes) was longer in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group than in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels group (210 vs 180, respectively; P = .15) with more blood loss (100 mL vs 50 mL, respectively; P = .012). The lengths (mm) of the resected pancreas and remnant distal pancreas in the 2 groups were 65 vs 50 (P = .053) and 40 vs 65 (P = .006), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .47), grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (27% vs 27%; P = 1), reintervention (7% vs 13%; P = .50), grade B-C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0% vs 13%; P = .13), length of hospital stay (20 days vs 22 days; P = .15), or new-onset diabetes (7% vs 10%; P = .67) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection is a safe technical modification of central pancreatectomy that does not prevent preservation of the distal pancreas and does not influence postoperative pancreatic fistula or endocrine insufficiency. Furthermore, it could reduce the risk of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomies for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas

OBJECTIVES

We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPPN) of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting patient characteristics and outcomes of MIP for SPPN was conducted.

RESULTS

We reviewed 27 studies comprising 149 patients with SPPN managed via MIP. Five were comparative retrospective cohort studies, comprising 46 and 60 patients in the minimally-invasive and open groups, respectively. Tumor size was smaller in the minimally-invasive group (mean difference, -2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.09 to -1.32; P < 0.001). The MI group had lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference, -180.19; 95% CI, -344.28 to -16.09; P = 0.03) and transfusion requirement (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04), and a shorter time to diet (mean difference, -2.99; 95% CI, -3.96 to -2.03; P < 0.001) and length of stay (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -6.98 to -0.24; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in operating time, margin positivity, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for SPPN is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements and a shorter postoperative time to diet and hospital stay.

Robotic central pancreatectomy

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing procedure that can be utilized in the resection of tumors of the neck or the proximal body of the pancreas. Among 872 open CP reported since 1993, the mean rate of morbidity was 43.2% and mean rate of mortality was 0.24%. The mean pancreatic fistula rate was 28%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 19%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 2% and the average incidence of exocrine insufficiency experienced by patients undergoing open CP was 4.4%. Also, the mean length of hospital stay was around 15 days. In comparison, a total of 100 patients underwent either laparoscopic or robotic CP with a mean rate of morbidity of 37.3% and mean rate of mortality of 0%. Also, the mean rate of development of pancreatic fistula was 36.6%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 17%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 1.5%. None of the patients included in these series developed any postoperative exocrine insufficiency. The mean length of hospital stay was around 13 days. Standard procedures such as DP and PD are associated with lower rates of short-term morbidity such as pancreatic fistula development but are also accompanied with a higher rate of long-term endocrine and exocrine insufficiency due to the significant loss of normal pancreatic parenchyma when compared to CP. It can be inferred, albeit from limited and small retrospective studies and case reports, that conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to CP are safe and feasible in highly specialized centers.

The Largest European Single-Center Experience: 300 Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) has become routine, large single-center series are still lacking. Our aim was to analyze the results of a large European single-center series of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Between January 2008 and September 2015, 300 LPRs were performed and studied prospectively, including 165 (55%) distal pancreatectomies, 68 (23%) pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs), 30 (10%) enucleations, 35 (11%) central pancreatectomies, and 2 (1%) total pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

Mean age was 54 ± 15.4 years old (range 17 to 87 years), and most patients were women (58%). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed for malignancy (46%), low potential malignant (44%), or benign (10%) diseases. The mean operative durations were 211 ± 102 minutes (range 30 to 540 minutes) for the entire population and 351 ± 59 minutes (range 240 to 540 minutes) for PD, and decreased with the learning curve. Mean blood loss was 229 ± 269 mL (range 0 to 1,500 mL), and 13 patients (4%) received transfusions. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 12 patients (4%), and only 5 in the last 250 patients (14% vs 2%; p < 0.001). Mortality occurred in 4 (1.3%) patients and only after PD (5.8%). Common complications were pancreatic fistula (n = 124, 41%), bleeding (n = 35, 12%), and reoperation (n = 28, 9%). The postoperative outcomes were less favorable in procedures with a reconstruction phase (n = 105) than in those without (n = 195), with increased mortality (3.8% vs 0%; p = 0.04), overall morbidity (76% vs % 52%; p < 0.001), and mean hospital stay (26 ± 15 days vs 16 ± 10 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection without a reconstruction phase has excellent outcomes; LPR with a reconstruction phase, especially PD, has less favorable outcomes, and further randomized studies are required to draw conclusions on the safety and benefits of this approach.

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.

Robot-Assisted Middle Pancreatectomy for Elderly Patients: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, safety, feasibility, and short- and long-term outcomes for elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies (MPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten patients (≥60 years) underwent robot-assisted middle pancreatectomies from 2012 to 2015. The perioperative data, including tumor size, operating time, rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postoperative morbidity, and other parameters, were analyzed. We collected and analyzed the follow-up information.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64.30 years (range, 60-73 years). The average tumor size was 2.61 cm. The 10 cases were all benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The mean operating time was 175.00 min. The mean blood loss was 113.00 ml with no blood transfusion needed. Postoperative fistulas developed in 5 patients; there were 2 Grade A fistulas and 3 grade B fistulas. There were 3 patients who underwent postoperative complications, including 2 Grade 1 or 2 complications and 1 Grade 3 complication. No reoperation and postoperative mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 19.91 days. After a median follow-up of 23 months, new onset of diabetes mellitus developed in 1 patient and none suffered from deterioration of previously diagnosed diabetes or exocrine insufficiency, and no tumor recurrence happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy was safe and feasible for elderly people. It had low risk of exocrine or endocrine dysfunction and benefited patients' long-term outcomes. Incidence of POPF was relatively high but we could prevent it from resulting in bad outcomes by scientific perioperative care and systemic treatment.

Laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy: how do I do it?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery is now extensively used, laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy (LMP) has rarely been described.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A 45-year-old woman was diagnosed with branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) at the pancreatic neck, which was discovered after numerous attacks of acute pancreatitis. LMP was decided on for treatment.

RESULTS

The patient underwent pure LMP with right to left dissection and one-layer pancreatogastric anastomosis. Surgery lasted 160 minutes, with 20 mL of blood loss. A frozen section showed negative margins on both sides. The postoperative course was uneventful with 15 days in the hospital. Histology confirmed the diagnosis of branch duct IPMN with moderate dysplasia and negative margins. The patient is symptom free 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results and the data in the literature suggest that the laparoscopic approach is indicated for middle pancreatectomy because there are no technical or oncological contraindications and the outcome is similar to that with the open approach.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a difficult procedure that has become increasingly popular. Nevertheless, comparative data on outcomes remain limited. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

STUDY DESIGN

Between April 2011 and April 2014, 46 LPD were performed and compared with 46 OPD, which theoretically can be done by the laparoscopic approach. Patients were also matched for demographic data, associated comorbidities, and underlying disease. Patient demographics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were studied from our single center prospective database.

RESULTS

Lower BMI (23 vs 27 kg/m(2), p < 0.001) and a soft pancreas (57% vs 47%, p = 0.38) were observed in patients with LPD, but there were no differences in associated comorbidities or underlying disease. Surgery lasted longer in the LPD group (342 vs 264 minutes, p < 0.001). One death occurred in the LPD group (2.1% vs 0%, p = 0.28) and severe morbidity was higher (28% vs 20%, p = 0.32) in LPD due to grade C pancreatic fistula (PF) (24% vs 6%, p = 0.007), bleeding (24% vs 7%, p = 0.02), and revision surgery (24% vs 11%, p = 0.09). Pathologic examination for malignant diseases did not identify any differences between the LPD and OPD as far as size (2.51 vs 2.82 cm, p = 0.27), number of harvested (20 vs 23, p = 0.62) or invaded (2.4 vs 2, p = 0.22) lymph nodes, or R0 resection (80% vs 80%; p = 1). Hospital stays were similar (25 vs 23 days, p = 0.59). There was no difference in outcomes between approaches in patients at a lower risk of PF.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that LPD is associated with higher morbidity, mainly due to more severe PF. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should be considered only in the subgroup of patients with a low risk of PF.