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

Application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate every stage of surgical innovation and generate high-quality research evidence, the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) framework was developed. This study aimed to explore the application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and identify factors limiting its dissemination.

METHODS

We conducted a citation search of 8 core IDEAL framework articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles related to hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 articles were identified through citation search. Following screening, 132 articles were finally retained, including 75 original studies (57%) and 57 secondary studies (43%). Of the original studies, only 10 articles (13%) accurately applied the IDEAL framework in methodology, distributed as follows: 1 in pre-IDEAL stage (0), 2 in Idea stage (1), 7 in Development stage (2a), 1 in Exploration stage (2b), and no articles in Assessment and Long-term study stages (3, 4). In the secondary studies, 36 articles (63%) mentioned and discussed the IDEAL framework, and all supported its application.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is increasingly widespread, as evidenced by its substantial citation in numerous articles. However, the utilization of the IDEAL framework remains predominantly confined to the early stages of innovation in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, coupled with instances of misapplication stemming from insufficient comprehension of the framework. Further efforts are necessary to extend the impact of the IDEAL framework and provide surgeons with comprehensive guidance for its judicious implementation.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Predictors of postoperative complications and readmissions in laparoscopic pancreas resection: Results of a cohort 105 consecutive cases. A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas (LRP) has been implemented to a varying degree because it is technically demanding and requires a long learning curve. In the present study we analyze the risk factors for complications and hospital readmissions in a single center study of 105 consecutive LRPs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using a prospective database. Data were collected on age, gender, BMI, ASA score, type of surgery, histologic type, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, degree of severity and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

The cohort included 105 patients, 63 females and 42 males with a median age and BMI of 58 (53-70) and 25.5 (22,2-27.9) respectively. Eighteen (17%) central pancreatectomies, 5 (4.8%) enucleations, 81 (77.6%) distal pancreatectomies and one total pancreatectomy were performed. Fifty-six patients (53.3%) experienced some type of complication, of which 13 (12.3%) were severe (Clavien-Dindo > IIIb) and 11 (10.5%) patients were readmitted in the first 30 days after surgery. In the univariate analysis, age, male gender, ASA score, central pancreatectomy and operative time were significantly associated with the development of complications (P <0.05). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR 7.97; 95% CI 1.08-58.88)), severe complications (OR 59.40; 95% CI, 7.69-458.99), and the development of intrabdominal collections (OR 8.97; 95% CI, 1.28-63.02)) were associated with hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, male gender, ASA score, operative time and central pancreatectomy are associated with a higher incidence of complications. Male gender, severe complications and intraabdominal collections are associated with more hospital readmissions.

Laparoscopic fluorescence imaging technique for visualizing biliary structures using sodium fluorescein: the result of a preclinical study in a porcine model

Purpose

Near-infrared fluorescence imaging has been recently applied in the field of hepatobiliary surgery. Our objective was to apply blue-light fluorescence cholangiography during laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, we designed a preclinical study to evaluate the feasibility of using blue-light fluorescence for cholangiography in a porcine model.

Methods

Five millimeters of sodium fluorescein (SF) solution was administered into the gallbladder of 20 male 3-way crossbred (Landrace × Yorkshire × Duroc) pigs in laparoscopic approach. The biliary tree was observed under blue light (a peak wavelength of 450 nm) emitted from a commercialized light-emitting diode (LED) light source (XLS1 extreme, Chammed).

Results

In 18 of 20 porcine models, immediately after SF solution was administered into the gallbladder, it was possible to visualize the biliary tree under blue light emitted from the LED light source.

Conclusion

This study provided a preclinical basis for using blue-light fluorescence cholangiography using SF in laparoscopic surgery. The clinical feasibility of blue-light fluorescence imaging techniques for laparoscopic cholecystectomy remained to be demonstrated.

Multidimensional evaluation of the learning curve for totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a challenging procedure. We investigated the learning curve (LC) for LPD with a multidimensional analysis.

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing LPD between 2017 and 2021, operated by a single surgeon, were considered. A multidimensional assessment of the LC was performed through Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) and Risk-Adjusted (RA)-CUSUM analysis.

RESULTS

113 patients were selected. Rates of conversion, overall postoperative complication, severe complication and mortality were 4%, 53%, 29% and 4%, respectively. RA-CUSUM analysis showed a LC with three phases: competency (procedures 1-51), proficiency (procedures 52-94), and mastery (after procedure 94). Operative time was lower in both phase two (588.17 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.001) and three (534.72 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.004) with respect to phase one. Severe complication rate was lower in mastery as compared to competency phase (42% vs 6%, p = 0.005). During mastery phase a greater number of lymph nodes was harvested in comparison to proficiency phase.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our LC analysis, 52 procedures were required to achieve technical competency in LPD. Mastery, which corresponded to a reduction in operative time and surgical failures, was acquired after 94 procedures.

Laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a prospective clinical trial and comparative analysis

Background

Open cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with high morbidity, which limits the degree to which patients may benefit from this therapy. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC.

Methods

This was a single institution prospective clinical trial and comparative study using historical controls. Patients with histologically confirmed peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of appendiceal, colorectal, ovarian, or primary peritoneal origin, peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) $$\le$$ ≤ 10 were eligible.

Results

Clinical trial: 18 patients (median age 57 years, 39% female) with appendiceal (15) or colorectal (3) primary PSM underwent laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC. Median and range outcomes were: operative time 219 min (134–378), EBL 10 mL (0–100), time to return to bowel function 3 days (1–7), duration IV narcotic use 3 days (1–8), length of stay 6 days (3–11). All patients had a complete cytoreduction (CC-score 0). Three (17%) experienced minor morbidity, with no major morbidity or mortality. Median DFS and OS were not reached with median follow-up of 48 months. Comparative analysis: Laparoscopic approach associated with reduced time to return of bowel function (3 versus 4 days, p = 0.001), length of stay (8 versus 5 days, p < 0.001), and morbidity (16% versus 42%, p = 0.008). Independent predictors of DFS included prior chemotherapy (HR 5.07, 95% CI 1.85, 13.89; p = 0.002), and CC-score > 0 (HR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19, 9.41; p = 0.025), but not surgical approach. CC-score > 0 was the only independent predictor of OS (HR 10.12, 95% CI 2.16, 47.30, p = 0.003).

Conclusions and relevance

Laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC should be considered for patients with PSM with low-volume disease, including those with adenocarcinoma histology.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02463877.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (l-RAMPS) provides a new surgical approach for patients with pancreatic cancers of the body and tail. However, whether it can achieve comparable outcomes to the open RAMPS (o-RAMPS) remains an issue.

METHODS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of l-RAMPS, the studies in the databases of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library published before September 13, 2021 were searched and a meta-analysis was performed using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective cohorts involving 189 patients were included for final pooled analysis. There were no significant differences in the patients' operation time, intra-abdominal bleeding rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, mild morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification = 1), moderate to severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥2), overall morbidity, wound infection rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative mortality, R0 resection rate, and 2-year overall survival between the 2 approaches. Besides, l-RAMPS was associated with less blood loss (mean difference (MD) = -232.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -316.93 to -148.46, P < 0.00001) and shorter days until oral feeding (MD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.22, P = 0.006). However, the pooled analysis also indicated a significantly fewer lymph nodes dissected (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -5.59 to -0.43, P = 0.02) in l-RAMPS approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Although l-RAMPS provides similar outcomes associated with benefits of minimal invasiveness compared to o-RAMPS, it harvested significantly fewer lymph nodes which might have potentially negative influence on the patients' long-term survival. L-RAMPS is still in the infancy stage and further investigation is needed to verify its feasibility.

Quality of Life Associated with Open vs Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open (O-PD) vs minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD), using a combination of validated qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2017 to 2019, patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were enrolled and presented with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary surveys preoperatively, before discharge, at first postoperative visit and approximately 3 to 4 months after operation ("3 months"). Longitudinal plots of median QoL scores were used to illustrate change in each score over time. In a subset of patients, content analysis of semistructured interviews at postoperative time points (1.5 to 6 months after operation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 56 patients who underwent PD, 33 had an O-PD (58.9%). Physical and functional scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline by 3 months. No significant differences were found in any domains of QoL at baseline and in the postoperative period between patients who underwent O-PD and MI-PD. Qualitative findings were concordant with quantitative data (n = 14). Patients with O-PD and MI-PD reported similar experiences with complications, pain, and wound healing in the postoperative period. Approximately half the patients in both groups reported "returning to normal" in the 6-month postoperative period. A total of 4 patients reported significant long-term issues with physical and functional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses in patients undergoing PD, we found no association between operative approach and QoL in patients who underwent O-PD vs MI-PD. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques for PD and the steep learning curve associated with these techniques, continued assessment of patient benefit is critical.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted pancreatic resection in patients with previous minor abdominal surgeries: a single-center experience of the first three years

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is limited to specialized high-volume centers and selected patient cohorts. Especially for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the standard procedure remains open surgery due to the fear of complications caused by abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical) at our center (Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) were collected prospectively and further analyzed from October 2017 to October 2020. Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. In univariate and multivariate analysis, baseline and perioperative parameters of patients with a history of prior abdominal surgeries (PS) were compared to those of patients with no history of prior abdominal surgeries (NPS).

RESULTS

Out of 131 patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery, 62 (47%) had a history of abdominal surgery. Previous procedures included most often appendectomy (32%) followed by gynecological surgery (29%) and cholecystectomy (27%). 24% of PS had received multiple surgeries prior to the robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. We did not detect differences in the duration of surgery (262 min), conversion rates (10%), and postoperative complications between NPS and PS. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and in-house mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed male sex and high BMI as a potential predictive factor for severe postoperative complications. Other characteristics like the type of pancreatic resection, ASA, and underlying malignancy showed no difference in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery to be safe and feasible for patients with a history of minor prior abdominal surgery. Hence, each patient should individually be evaluated for a minimally invasive approach regardless of a history of previous operations.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy has increased in recent years, but the risk of postoperative VTE is undefined. We aimed to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy using an administrative dataset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted pancreatectomy database (2016-2018) were identified. VTE was compared between patients who underwent open or minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy directly and after propensity score matching 1:1 for demographics, comorbidities, and peri-/intra-operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 12,227 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy during the study period (open: n = 11,217; minimally invasive: n = 1010). Before matching, the VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (5.2% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.033), and minimally invasive resection was independently associated with VTE (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.09-2.06). After matching, there were 916 patients per group without differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy had longer median operative times (422 vs. 348 min). The VTE rate remained higher following minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy after matching (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.018), mainly driven by a higher DVT rate (3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher postoperative VTE rate compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: operation-related factors

Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, which has been recently introduced in the field of perioperative care, represents a multimodal strategy to attenuate the loss, and improve the restoration, of functional capacity after surgery. This program aims to reduce morbidity and enhance recovery by reducing surgical stress, optimizing pain control, and facilitating early resumption of an oral diet and early mobilization. Considering this perspective, protocols for enhanced recovery should include comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Appropriate protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and thereby reduce the duration of hospitalization.Current Concepts: In major abdominal surgeries, the recommended ERAS protocols involve common items such as preoperative counseling, preoperative optimization, prehabilitation, preoperative nutrition, fasting and carbohydrate loading, bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical access, drainage, nasogastric intubation, urinary drainage, early mobilization and prevention of postoperative ileus, postoperative glycemic control, and postoperative nutritional care. These items have been briefly reviewed with the relevant evidence.Discussion and Conclusion: ERAS is a comprehensive and evidence-based guideline for optimal perioperative care. Although a number of ERAS items still require high-level evidence through well-designed randomized controlled trials, the ERAS guidelines can serve as adequate recommendations for our practice. Thus, these items can be introduced and adopted with evidence. In addition, it is important to remove items that are not supported by evidence from routine procedures.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: outcomes in a single high-volume institution

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors, and further compare the outcomes between different surgical techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected clinical data of consecutive patients with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors underwent surgery from February 2014 to February 2019. Patients were grouped and compared according to different surgical operations they accepted.

RESULTS

Totally 164 patients were reviewed and 83 patients underwent laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPPPD), 41 patients underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and 20 patients underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) were included in this study, the rest 20 patients underwent laparoscopic enucleation were excluded. There were 53 male patients and 91 female patients. The median age of these patients was 53.0 years (IQR 39.3-63.0 years). The median BMI was 21.5 kg/m² (IQR 19.7-24.0 kg/m²). The postoperative severe complication was 4.2% and the 90-days mortality was 0. Compare with LCP group, the LPPPD and LSPDP group had longer operation time (300.4 ± 89.7 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P < 0.001) while LSPDP group had shorter operation time (174.8 ± 46.4 vs. 197.5 ± 30.5 min, P = 0.027), more blood loss [140.0 (50.0-1000.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0) ml P < 0.001 and 100.0 (20.0-300.0) vs. 50.0 (20.0-200.0 ml, P = 0.039, respectively), lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula [3 (3.6%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P < 0.001 and 3 (7.3%) vs. 8 (40.0%), P = 0.006, respectively], lower rate of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage [0 (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%), P = 0.036 and (0%) vs. 2 (10.0%) P = 0.104, respectively] and lower rate of postoperative severe complications [2 (2.4%) vs.4 (20.0%), P = 0.012 and 0 (0%) vs. 4 (20.0%), P = 0.009, respectively], higher proportion of postoperative pancreatin and insulin treatment (pancreatin: 39.8% vs., 15% P = 0.037 and 24.4%vs. 15%, P = 0.390; insulin: 0 vs. 18.1%, P = 0.040 and 0 vs. 12.2%, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, laparoscopic pancreatectomy could be safely performed for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors while the decision to perform laparoscopic central pancreatectomy should be made carefully for fit patients who can sustain a significant postoperative morbidity and could benefit from the excellent long-term results even in a high-volume center.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Immunological effects of hybrid minimally invasive versus conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy - A single center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is a field of rapid development. Evidence from randomized controlled trials in visceral surgery however still falls short of attesting unequivocal superiority to laparoscopic procedures over conventional open approaches with regard to postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to explore the perioperative immune status of patients undergoing hybrid minimally invasive or conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy in a prospective cohort study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Subtyping, quantification and functional analysis of circulating immune cells and determination of cytokine-levels in blood samples from patients receiving either hybrid minimally invasive (laPD) or conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (oPD) was performed. Samples were taken from 29 patients (laPD: n = 14, oPD: n = 15) prior, during and up to six weeks after surgery. Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry, cytokines/chemokines were measured by proximity extension and enzyme-linked immunoassays.

RESULTS

Open surgery induced higher levels of circulating inflammatory CD14⁺⁺CD16⁺ intermediate monocytes. In contrast, hybrid minimally invasive resection was accompanied by increased numbers of circulating regulatory CD4⁺CD25⁺CD127^low T-cells and by a reduced response of peripheral blood CD3⁺CD4⁺ T-cell populations to superantigen stimulation. Yet, rates of postoperative morbidity and infectious complications were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results of this exploratory study may suggest a more balanced postoperative inflammatory response and a better-preserved immune regulation after hybrid minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared to open surgery. Whether these results may translate to or be harnessed for improved patient outcome needs to be determined by future studies including larger cohorts and fully laparoscopic or robotic procedures.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous abdominal surgery can be a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Today, distal pancreatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically. This study investigates the consequences of prior upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP from April 1997 to January 2020 were included. Based on the history and type of PUAS, these were categorized into three groups: minimally invasive (I), open (II), and no PUAS (III). To reduce possible confounding factors, the groups were matched in 1:2:4 fashion based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology grade.

RESULTS

After matching, 30, 60, and 120 patients were included in the minimally invasive, open and no PUAS groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of intraoperative outcomes. Postoperative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were similar. Open PUAS was associated with higher Comprehensive Complication Index (33.7 vs 20.9 vs 26.2, p = 0.03) and greater proportion of patients with ≥ 2 complications (16.7 vs 0 vs 6.7%, p = 0.02) compared with minimally invasive and no PUAS. Male sex, overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasia, and open PUAS were risk factors for severe morbidity in the univariable analysis. Only open PUAS was statistically significant in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

PUAS does not impair the feasibility and safety of LDP as its perioperative outcomes are largely comparable to those in patients without PUAS. However, open PUAS increases the burden and severity of postoperative complications.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality.

BACKGROUND

RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with poor physical status

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous over open surgery in the treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and low-grade malignancies. Yet the evidence on the relationship between comorbidities and the outcomes of LDP remains scarce.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP for all indications between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Preoperative physical status was defined according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) criteria. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients with high (ASA III-IV) and low/moderate anesthetic risk (ASA I-II).

RESULTS

A total of 605 patients were eligible for analysis including 190 with ASA III-IV and 415 with ASA I-II. The former was associated with older age, male gender, preexisting medical conditions, greater total number of comorbidities and red blood cell transfusion. The rate of medical complications was significantly higher in high-risk patients. Multivariable analysis identified ASA III-IV and operative time as independent predictors for medical complications. Overall/severe morbidity, surgical complications and mortality rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor physical status defined as ASA grades III-IV predicts medical complications, but has a limited impact on surgical complications and severe morbidity of LDP. Thus, it should not be considered as a contraindication for LDP.

Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

With all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

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.

Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS) to Include Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Pan-European Validation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to validate and optimize the alternative Fistula Risk Score (a-FRS) for patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in a large pan-European cohort.

BACKGROUND

MIPD may be associated with an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The a-FRS could allow for risk-adjusted comparisons in research and improve preventive strategies for high-risk patients. The a-FRS, however, has not yet been validated specifically for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD.

METHODS

A validation study was performed in a pan-European cohort of 952 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD (543 laparoscopic, 258 robot-assisted, 151 hybrid) in 26 centers from 7 countries between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome was POPF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC; discrimination) and calibration plots. Validation included univariable screening for clinical variables that could improve performance.

RESULTS

Overall, 202 of 952 patients (21%) developed POPF after MIPD. Before adjustment, the original a-FRS performed moderately (AUC 0.68) and calibration was inadequate with systematic underestimation of the POPF risk. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy (odds ratio 4.6, 95 confidence interval [CI] 2.8-7.6) and male sex (odds ratio 1.9, 95 CI 1.4-2.7) were identified as important risk factors for POPF in MIPD. The updated a-FRS, consisting of body mass index, pancreatic texture, duct size, and male sex, showed good discrimination (AUC 0.75, 95 CI 0.71-0.79) and adequate calibration. Performance was adequate for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated a-FRS (www.pancreascalculator.com) now includes male sex as a risk factor and is validated for both MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy. The increased risk of POPF in laparoscopic MIPD was associated with single-row pancreatojejunostomy, which should therefore be discouraged.

Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center

Background

Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear.

Methods

The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined.

Results

Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time.

Conclusions

In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-021-08306-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

Preoperative predictive factors of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy difficulty

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a challenging operation due to technical complexity and tumor-related factors. Aim of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors affecting LDP difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LDP between 2015 and 2018 at San Raffaele Hospital and Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital were enrolled retrospectively. Three variables were used to define surgical difficulty: conversion to open, duration of surgery >3rd quartile and intraoperative blood loss >3rd quartile. The presence of ≥1 of these 3 variables was considered as another measure of difficulty.

RESULTS

Overall, 191 patients were included. Conversion to open was required in 25 patients (13%). At multiple regression analysis, tumor proximity to major vessels was the only independent predictor of conversion from laparoscopic to open (p < 0.001). No variables independently predicted an excessive duration of surgery. Male gender (p = 0.033) and increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.018) were independent predictors of excessive blood loss. Increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line (p = 0.014) and tumor proximity to major vessels (p = 0.002) were significant risk factors for the presence of ≥1 outcome of surgical difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Male gender, increasing parenchymal thickness at resection line and tumor proximity to major vessels represent preoperative risk factors of LDP difficulty.

Gastrointestinal side effects of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery

In this chapter, we describe the gastrointestinal side effects of oesophagectomy, gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer, with a focus on long-term functional impairments and their management. Improvements in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery have led to a growing group of long-term survivors. The invasive nature of these surgeries profoundly alters the upper gastrointestinal anatomy, with lasting implications for long-term function, and how these impairments may be treated. Successfully maintaining a high quality of survivorship requires multidisciplinary approach, with survivorship care plans focused on function as much as the detection of recurrence.

Surgical Management of Neuroendocrine Tumours of the Pancreas

Neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas (pNET) are rare, accounting for 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. They develop from pancreatic islet cells and cover a wide range of heterogeneous neoplasms. While most pNETs are sporadic, some are associated with genetic syndromes. Furthermore, some pNETs are 'functioning' when there is clinical hypersecretion of metabolically active peptides, whereas others are 'non-functioning'. pNET can be diagnosed at a localised stage or a more advanced stage, including regional or distant metastasis (in 50% of cases) mainly located in the liver. While surgical resection is the cornerstone of the curative treatment of those patients, pNET management requires a multidisciplinary discussion between the oncologist, radiologist, pathologist, and surgeon. However, the scarcity of pNET patients constrains centralised management in high-volume centres to provide the best patient-tailored approach. Nonetheless, no treatment should be initiated without precise diagnosis and staging. In this review, the steps from the essential comprehensive preoperative evaluation of the best surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic, standard versus sparing parenchymal pancreatectomy, lymphadenectomy) according to pNET staging are analysed. Strategies to enhance the short- and long-term benefit/risk ratio in these particular patients are discussed.

Tips and tricks for a safe laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has been revolutionized during the last decades and, although not as rapidly or widely adopted, the laparoscopic approach seems to be feasible with various potential advantages compared to traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically demanding procedure with a steep learning curve mainly due to the fact that the technique is not standardized. Technical details as well as tips and tricks of the operation are described. Standardization of the procedure is the cornerstone of the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. One of the largest barriers of this complex procedure is the reconstruction phase with the creation of three separate anastomoses. A hybrid approach may help surgeons – especially during the initial phase of the learning curve – to overcome the difficulties associated with a fully laparoscopic reconstruction, while retaining the advantages of laparoscopy.

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.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

EVIDENCE REVIEW

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

Laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with artery-first approach in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

An artery-first approach for pancreatic cancer (PC) is challenging to perform laparoscopically and is mainly performed using an open approach. The aims of this study were to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) with an artery-first approach (L-aRAMPS) as compared with open aRAMPS (O-aRAMPS) in resectable PC using matched-pair analysis.

METHODS

Artery-first approach is an early dissection of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) from behind the pancreas body as the first surgical step. Data on L-aRAMPS and O-aRAMPS, performed between July 2013 and November 2019, were collected retrospectively. Additionally, the spatial characteristics of the splenic artery were analyzed using computed tomography.

RESULTS

Thirty L-aRAMPS and 33 O-aRAMPS for resectable PC were included. After matching, 15 L-aRAMPS were compared with 15 O-aRAMPS. Median intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay were significantly improved in L-aRAMPS compared to O-aRAMPS (30 vs. 220 g, p < 0.001; 12 vs. 16 days, p = 0.049). The overall morbidity was similar in both study groups. The total number of lymph nodes dissected and those harvested from around the SMA and R0 resection was similar in both study groups. We classified the width of the cross section of the pancreas body into three equal parts: the upper, middle, and lower parts of the pancreas; 63% of the splenic artery origin was located in middle and lower parts of the pancreas body.

CONCLUSION

L-aRAMPS is technically safe and oncologically feasible to secure favorable surgical outcomes for resectable PC patients.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Individual Surgeon Experience on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies: Collective Experience of Multiple Surgeons at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Presently, there are limited studies analyzing the learning experience of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies (MIDPs) and these frequently focused on a single surgeon or institution learning curve. This study aims to critically analyze the impact of individual surgeon experience on the outcomes of MIDP based on the collective experiences of multiple surgeons at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 90 consecutive MIDP from 2006 to 2018 was performed. These cases were performed by 13 surgeons over various time periods. The cohort was stratified into 4 groups according to individual surgeon experience. The case experience of these surgeons was as follows: <5 cases (n=8), 6 to 10 cases (n=2), 11 to 15 cases (n=2), and 30 cases (n=1).

RESULTS

The distribution of the 90 cases were as follows: experience <5 cases (n=44), 6 to 10 cases (n=20), 11 to 15 cases (n=11), and 15 cases (n=15). As individual surgeons gained increasing experience, this was significantly associated with increasingly difficult resections performed, increased frequency of the use of robotic assistance and decreasing open conversion rates (20.5% vs. 100% vs. 9.1% vs. 0%, P=0.038). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest that the outcomes of MIDP in terms of open conversion rate could be optimized after 15 cases. Subset analyses suggested that the learning curve for MIDP of low difficulty was only 5 cases.

CONCLUSION

MIDP can be safely adopted today and the individual surgeon learning curve for MIDP of all difficulties in terms of open conversion rate can be overcome after 15 cases.

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers.

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3).

RESULTS

Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed.

Surgical Principles in the Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) are increasingly recognized entities, whose incidence has dramatically grown during the last two decades. Surgery plays a pivotal role in their management as it represents the only chance of cure. Since PanNENs display a wide range of aggressiveness, their surgical management needs to be tailored on tumor's and patient's characteristics. Currently, there are several open questions and burning issues in the field of PanNEN, such as the management of asymptomatic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PanNET) ≤ 2 cm. An active surveillance of these small lesions has been demonstrated to be safe although the available evidences are only based on retrospective studies. On the other hand, formal pancreatic resection associated with lymphadenectomy represents the gold standard for patients with localized NF-PanNEN > 2 cm or NF-PanNEN ≤ 2 cm in the presence of symptoms, dilation of the main pancreatic duct or suspicion of nodal metastases. Surgery plays also an important role in the setting of metastatic disease. In particular, surgery is generally recommended in the presence of low-grade, resectable, metastatic disease, but several series have reported also a survival benefit of palliative primary tumor resection in patients with unresectable liver metastases. The role of surgery in PanNEN G3 is still controversial. Indeed, surgery is associated with an improved survival in patients with well-differentiated PanNET G3, whereas there is almost no survival benefit in case of poorly differentiated lesions.

Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee

BACKGROUND

Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members.

METHODS

We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES.

RESULTS

Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective comparison between minimally invasive and open approach using propensity score weighting

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNEN) are ideal entities for minimally invasive surgery. The advantage of the laparoscopic approach in terms of complications, length of stay (LOS) and cosmetic results has been previously demonstrated. However, scarce data are available on long-term oncological outcomes. Aim of this study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes, pathological findings and long-term oncological results of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for PanNEN.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ODP or MIDP for nonfunctioning PanNEN (NF-PanNEN) were retrospectively analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score was performed to compare the outcomes of MIDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Overall, 124 patients were included in the study: 84 underwent OPD, whereas 40 were submitted to MIDP. The rate of high-grade postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIDP group (p = 0.005, grade of complication with highest estimated probability 0 vs 2) and the postoperative LOS was significantly shorter after MIDP (p < 0.001, estimated days 8 versus 10). The number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) in the ODP group was significantly higher (p = 0.0036, estimated number of ELN 13 vs 10). Similar disease-free survival and overall survival were reported for the two groups (p = 0.234 and p = 0.666, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although MIDP for PanNEN seems to be associated with a lower number of ELN, long-term survival is not influenced by the type of surgical approach. MIDP is advantageous in terms of postoperative complications and LOS, but prospective studies are needed to confirm the overall oncological quality of resection in this group of neoplasms.

The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Consensus Paper on the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

Surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an introduction

Introduction: Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (pNETs) represent only 1% to 2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. These tumors can be classified as functional or nonfunctional tumors; as sporadic or from a genetic origin; as neuroendocrine neoplasms or carcinoma. Over the last decade, diagnosis of pNETs has increased significantly mainly due to the widespread use of cross-sectional imaging. Those tumors are usually associated with a good prognosis. Surgery, the only curative option for those patients, should always be discussed, ideally in a multidisciplinary team setting.Areas covered: We discuss i), the preoperative management of pNETs and the importance of accurate diagnosis, localization, grading and staging with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, and nuclear medicine imaging; ii), surgical indications and iii), the surgical approach (standard pancreatectomy vs pancreatic-sparing surgery).Expert opinion: The treatment option of all patients presenting with pNETs should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting with surgeon's experienced in both pancreatic surgery and neuroendocrine tumor management. A complete preoperative imaging assessment - morphological and functional - must be performed. Surgery is usually recommended for functional pNETs, nonfunctional pNETs >2 cm (nf-pNETs) or for symptomatic nf-pNETs.

International Validation of Reduced Major Morbidity After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Compared With Open Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the nationwide impact of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) on major morbidity as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated significant reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP compared with ODP, but was not powered to assess potential risk reductions in major morbidity.

METHODS

International cohort study using the American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) (88 centers; 2014-2016) to evaluate the association between surgical approach (MIDP vs ODP) and 30-day composite major morbidity (CMM; death or severe complications) with external model validation using Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group data (17 centers; 2005-2016). Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of nationwide MIDP rates between 0% and 100% on postoperative CMM at conversion rates between 0% and 25%, using estimated marginal effects. A sensitivity analysis tested the impact at various scenarios and patient populations.

RESULTS

Of 2921 ACS-NSQIP patients, 1562 (53%) underwent MIDP with 18% conversion, and 1359 (47%) underwent ODP. MIDP was independently associated with reduced CMM [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.60, P < 0.001], confirmed by external model validation (n = 637, P < 0.003). The association between rising MIDP implementation rates and falling postoperative morbidity was linear between 0% (all ODP) and 100% (all MIDP). The absolute risk reduction for CMM was 11% (95% CI 7.3%-15%) at observed conversion rates and improved to 14% (95% CI 11%-18%) as conversion approached 0%. Similar effects were seen across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This international study predicted a nationwide 11% risk reduction for CMM after MIDP versus ODP, which is likely to improve as conversion rates decrease. These findings confirm secondary outcomes of the recent LEOPARD RCT.

Laparoscopic surgery in pancreatic diseases: Pushing the boundaries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has expanded exponentially in the last two decades but, somehow it is limited in pancreatic surgery by virtue of the pancreas being a friable, retroperitoneal organ with difficult access and adjacent major vessels risking torrential bleed. It is thought to be unforgiving if not handled well. However, improvements in technology and surgeon's expertise have pushed the boundaries of minimal access surgery (MAS) to include pancreas in its domain. We present our series of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) with an aim to look at the feasibility and outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all LPS done at the Gastrointestinal Surgery (GIS) centre of a tertiary care Armed Forces Hospital over a period of 3 years.

RESULTS

A total of 24 LPS were done during this period. The median age of the patients was 46 years (range; 13-81). There were 14 male and 10 female patients. Nine patients had at least one co-morbidity. Three patients underwent laparoscopic lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, 4 distal pancreatectomy, 4 laparoscopic Whipples pancreaticoduodenectomy, 6 laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy, 6 laparoscopic cystogastrostomy and 1 roux en y cystojejunostomy.

CONCLUSION

LPS can be performed for almost all open pancreatic surgeries and can be done with reasonable outcomes. However, it has a steep learning curve and therefore, a hybrid approach leading to a totally laparoscopic approach may be the way forward.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is increasingly done by laparoscopy but data from routine practise are scarce. We describe practise in a national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Patient Register of all patients undergoing DP from 2012 to 2016. National resection rates were analysed. Short-term outcomes include length of stay, reoperation, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Risk is reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 554 procedures, 327 (59%) were laparoscopic. Median age was 66 years (iqr 55-72) and 52% were women. Resection rates increased during the period for all DP (from 1.76 to 2.39 per 100.000/yr), and significantly for laparoscopic DP (adjusted R-square 0.858; P = 0.015). Elderly patients had more resection (r₂ = 0.11; P = 0.019). Splenectomy (n = 427; 77%) was less likely with laparoscopy (laparoscopy 72% vs open 84%, respectively; OR 0.64, 95% c.i. 0.42-0.97; P = 0.035). Multivisceral resections occurred more often in open DP (5.3% vs 1.2% for laparoscopy, OR 4.51, 1.44-14.2; P = 0.008). Reoperation occurred in 34 (6%), readmission in 109 (20%), and mortality in 8 (1.4%). Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSION

Use of DP increases in the population, particularly in the elderly, with use of laparoscopic access and an association with a reduced hospital stay.