Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis

Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery: Is There a Benefit?

Minimally invasive procedures minimize trauma to the human body while maintaining satisfactory therapeutic results. Minimally invasive pancreas surgery (MIPS) was introduced in 1994, but questions regarding its efficacy compared to an open approach were widespread. MIPS is associated with several perioperative advantages while maintaining oncological standards when performed by surgeons with a robust training regimen and frequent practice. Future research should focus on addressing learning curve discrepancies while identifying factors associated with shortening the time needed to attain technical proficiency.

Analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy based on a single surgeon's experience: a retrospective observational study

Purpose

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a highly challenging procedure, which prevents its widespread adoption despite its advantages of being a minimally invasive procedure. This study analyzed the learning curve for LPD based on a single surgeon's experience.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 111 consecutive patients who underwent LPD by a single surgeon between March 2014 and October 2022. The learning curve was assessed using cumulative summation (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) methods. Surgical failure was defined as conversion to an open procedure or the occurrence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). Based on the learning curve analysis, we divided the learning curve into the early and late phases and compared the operative outcomes in each phase.

Results

Based on the CUSUM analysis, the operation time decreased after the first 33 cases. Based on the RA-CUSUM analysis, the LPD technique stabilized after the 44th case. In the late phase, operation time, length of stay, and incidence of delayed gastric emptying, severe complications, and surgical failure were significantly lower than in the early phase.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that 44 cases are required for stabilization of the LPD technique and improvement of operative outcomes.

Long-Term Outcomes of Carbon Dioxide Insufflation in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation is increasingly performed for esophageal cancer; however, there is limited evidence of the long-term outcomes of CO2 insufflation on postoperative survival.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the long-term outcomes of TE with or without CO2 insufflation.

METHODS

We enrolled 182 patients who underwent TE for esophageal cancer between January 2003 and October 2013 and categorized them into two groups: with and without CO2 insufflation. The primary endpoint was five-year overall survival (5y-OS). Secondary endpoints included long-term outcomes, such as five-year relapse-free survival (5y-RFS) and five-year cancer-specific survival (5y-CSS), and short-term outcomes, such as surgical and non-surgical complications and reoperation within 30 days.

RESULTS

Follow-up until death or the five-year postoperative period was 98.9% (median follow-up duration was six years in survivors). After adjusting for age, sex, and yield pathologic tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) stage, we found no significant differences in 5y-OS (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.66-1.91), 5y-RFS (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.83), or 5y-CSS rates (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57-1.75). For short-term outcomes, significant intergroup differences in operation time (p=0.02), blood loss (p<0.001), postoperative length of stay (p<0.001), and incidence of atelectasis (p=0.004) were observed. The results of the sensitivity analysis were similar to the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

In thoracoscopic procedures, CO2 insufflation significantly improved short-term outcomes, and it appears that the recurrence risk of esophageal cancer may not impact the long-term prognosis. While the influence of CO2 insufflation in thoracoscopic esophageal surgery remains unclear, our study suggests that the long-term prognosis is not compromised in other thoracic surgeries.

Long-term quality of life is better after laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Three randomized controlled trials have reported improved functional recovery after Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Long-term results regarding quality of life (QoL) are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term QoL of LPD versus OPD.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

A monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among patients < 75 years old who underwent LPD or OPD for a benign or premalignant pathology in a high-volume center (2011-2021). An electronic three-part questionnaire was sent to eligible patients, including two diseases specific QoL questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and a pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) and a body image questionnaire. Patient demographics and postoperative data were collected and compared between LPD and OPD.

RESULTS

Among 948 patients who underwent PD (137 LPD, 811 OPD), 170 were eligible and 111 responded (58 LPD and 53 OPD). LPD versus OPD showed no difference in mean age (51 vs. 55 years, p = 0.199) and female gender (40% vs. 45%, p = 0.631), but LPD showed lower BMI (24 vs 26; p = 0.028) and higher preoperative pancreatitis (29% vs 13%; p = 0.041). The postoperative outcome showed similar Clavien-Dindo ≥ III morbidity (19% vs. 23%; p = 0.343) and length of stay (24 vs. 21 days, p = 0.963). After a similar median follow-up (3 vs. 3 years; p = 0.122), LPD vs OPD patients reported higher QoL (QLQ-C30: 49.6 vs 56.3; p = 0.07), better pancreas specific health status score (PAN20: 50.5 vs 55.5; p = 0.002), physical functioning (p = 0.002), and activities limitations (p = 0.02). Scar scores were better after LPD regarding esthetics (p = 0.001), satisfaction (p = 0.04), chronic pain at rest (p = 0.036), moving (p = 0.011) or in daily activities (p = 0.02). There was no difference in digestive symptoms (p = 0.995).

CONCLUSION

This monocentric study found improved long-term QoL in patients undergoing LPD, as compared to OPD, for benign and premalignant diseases. These results could be considered when choosing the surgical approach in these patients.

A Short-Term Outcomes Comparison of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy at Different Stages of Learning Curves: A Single Center Report

Background: With the development of surgical instruments and the growth of professional expertise over the past decades, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely applied in different centers. However, there are still some controversies about the safety of this procedure. Meanwhile, perioperative outcomes are affected by hospital size, surgeon experience, and the learning curve. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of LPD with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) at different stages of the learning curve. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 911 patients who had received pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) at a single institution. Among them, 208 patients underwent OPD, and 703 cases received LPD successfully. We divided those patients into three phases based on the key point of the learning curve for LPD and compared the perioperative outcomes with OPD at each stage. Result: Morbidity and mortality rates associated with LPD were significantly higher in the initial stage than in the OPD group, whereas the number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate for pancreatic cancer were comparable to the OPD group. As surgical experience increased, postoperative complications, operating time, and intraoperative blood loss all are greatly decreased. At the mature stage of the learning curve, the rate of postoperative complications in LPD was lower than in the OPD group. Meanwhile, the length of hospital stay was significantly shortened compared to the OPD group. Conclusion: After a long period of training and learning, LPD can be performed safely. And LPD can produce comparable oncological results, with faster postoperative recovery and lower incidence of postoperative complications, after the surgeons successfully surmounted the learning curve.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).

METHODS

A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction for pancreatic cancer: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction has been applied in pancreatic cancer patients with tumor infiltration or adherence. However, it is controversial whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with major vascular resection and reconstruction is feasible. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LPD with major vascular resection compared with OPD with major vascular resection.

METHODS

We reviewed data for all pancreatic cancer patients undergoing LPD or OPD with vascular resection at Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, between February 2018 and May 2022. We compared the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinicopathological data of the two groups to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LPD with major vascular resection.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction, including 25 LPDs and 38 OPDs. The LPD group had less intraoperative blood loss (200 vs. 400 mL, P < 0.001), lower proportion of intraoperative blood transfusion (16.0% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.047), longer operation time (390 vs. 334 min, P = 0.004) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 14 days, P = 0.005). There was no perioperative death in all patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of total postoperative complications, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying and abdominal infection between the two groups. No postpancreatectomy hemorrhage nor bile leakage occurred during perioperative period. There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate and number of lymph nodes harvested between the two groups. Patency of reconstructed vessels in the two groups were 96.0% and 92.1%, respectively (P = 0.927).

CONCLUSIONS

LPD with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction was safe, feasible and oncologically acceptable for selected patients with pancreatic cancer, and it can achieve similar or even better perioperative results compared to open approach.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Surgical Approach does not Affect Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD and RPD, respectively), on compliance and time to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic PDAC were analyzed in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Three groups were matched per propensity score: open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and MIPD, LPD and RPD, and converted and nonconverted patients. RIOT rates and time to RIOT were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 14,135 patients were included: 11,834 (83.7%) underwent OPD and 2301 (16.3%) underwent MIPD. After score matching, RIOT rates (67.2 vs. 65.3%; p = 0.112) and RIOT within 8 weeks (57.7 vs. 56.4%; p = 0.276) were similar among MIPD and OPD groups, and approach was not a significant predictor of RIOT on multivariable regression. Neither RIOT nor time to RIOT were different among LPD and RPD groups (63.9 vs. 67.0%, and 58.4 vs. 56.9%, respectively). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with lower conversion rates (HR 0.519; p < 0.001), and conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT (10 vs. 8 weeks; p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

In this national cohort, approach did not impact RIOT rates or time to RIOT for patients with PDAC. While conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT, readiness to commence adjuvant therapy was similar for LPD and RPD.

The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

BACKGROUND

Although early series focused on benign disease, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) might be particularly suited for malignancy. Unlike their predecessors, fellowship-trained (FT) Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary (HPB) surgeons usually have equal skills in approaching peri-ampullary tumors (PT) either openly or via minimally invasive (MI) techniques.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed a MI-HPB-FT surgeon's 10-year experience with PD. A sub-analysis of malignant PT was also done (MIPD-PT vs. OPD-PT). The primary endpoint was to assess postoperative mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints included operative parameters, length of hospital stay, and survival analysis. Moreover, we addressed practice pattern changes for a surgeon straight out of training with no previous experience of independent surgery.

RESULTS

From December 2007-February 2018, one MI-HPB-FT performed a total of 100 PDs, including 57 MIPDs and 43 open PDs (OPDs). In both groups, over 70% of PDs were undertaken for malignancy. Eight patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal cancer (PDC) were in the OPD-PT group (as compared to only 2 in the MIPD-PT group) (p = 0.07). Estimated mean blood loss and length of stay were less in the MIPD-PT group (345 mL and 12 days) as compared to the OPD-PT group (971 mL and 16 days), p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively. However, the mean operative time was longer for the MIPD-PT (456 min) as compared to the OPD-PT (371 min), p < 0.001. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 2.6%/5.1% after MIPD-PT compared to 0%/3.2% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 1. Overall 30-/90-day morbidity rates were similar at 41.0%/43.6% after MIPD-PT and 35.5%/41.9% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 0.8 and 1. Complete resection (R0) rates were not statistically different, 97.4% after MIPD-PT compared to 87.0% after OPD-PT (p = 0.2). After MIPD and OPD for malignant PT, overall 1, 3 and 5-year survival rates, and median survival were 82.5%, 59.6% and 46.3% and 38 months as compared to 52.5%, 15.7% and 10.5% and 13 months, respectively (p = 0.01). In the MIDP-PT group, recurrence free survival (RFS) at 1, 3 and 5 years and median RFS were 69.1%, 41.9% and 33.5% and 26 months as compared to 50.4%, 6.3% and 6.3% and 13 months, in the OPD-PT group, respectively (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

FT HPB Surgeons who begin their practice with the ability to do both MI and OPD may preferentially approach resectable peri-ampullary tumors minimally invasively. This may result in decreased blood loss decreased length of hospital stays. Despite longer operative time, the improved visualization of MI techniques may enable superior R0 rates when compared to historical open controls. Moreover, combined with quicker initiation of adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatments, this may eventually result in improved survival.

Adverse Impact of Intraoperative Conversion on the Postoperative Course Following Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Using Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Summation Methods

Background: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is one of the most technically challenging operations of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon who conducted 115 LPDs at a single center. Materials and Methods: From August 2015 to August 2020, 115 patients underwent LPD. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative summation (RA-CUSUM) analyses were used to evaluate the LPD learning curve. All variables were compared after dividing the learning curve phases. Results: After 74 cases, operative time improved based on the CUSUM analysis of the operation time. From the RA-CUSUM analysis, three distinct phases of the learning curve were identified (phase I: 1-42 cases, phase II: 43-73 cases, and phase III: 74-115 cases). The mean operative time was significantly lower in phase III compared with that in phases I and II (348.5 minutes versus 444.6 minutes and 439.9 minutes, P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). The rate of estimated blood loss >500 mL was significantly decreased among the three phases (P = .017). The conversion rate significantly decreased from 11.9% in phase I to 6.5% in phase II to 0% in phase III (P = .023). The rates of overall complication (Clavien-Dindo >IIIA), postoperative pancreatic fistula, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage were significantly decreased as phases progressed. Postoperative hospital stay, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission did not significantly differ among phases. Conclusions: According to learning curve analyses, the LPD failure rate plateaued after 42 cases and stabilized after 73 cases.

Nomogram and a predictive model for postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodectomy

To develop a predictive model and a nomogram for predicting postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). A total of 409 LPD patients that underwent LPD by the same surgical team between January 2014 and December 2020 were included as the training cohort. The preoperative data of patients were statistically compared and analyzed for exploring factors correlated with postoperative hemorrhage. The predictive model was developed by multivariate logistic regression and stepwise (stepAIC) selection. A nomogram based on the predictive model was developed. The discriminatory ability of the predictive model was validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and leave-one-out method. The statistical analysis was performed using R 3.5.1 (www.r-project.org). The predictive model including the risk-associated factors of postoperative hemorrhage was as follows: 2.695843 − 0.63056 × (Jaundice = 1) − 1.08368 × (DM = 1) − 2.10445 × (Hepatitis = 1) + 1.152354 × (Pancreatic tumor = 1) + 1.071354 × (Bile duct tumor = 1) − 0.01185 × CA125 − 0.04929 × TT − 0.08826 × APTT + 26.03383 × INR − 1.9442 × PT + 1.979563 × WBC − 2.26868 × NEU − 2.0789 × LYM − 0.02038 × CREA + 0.00459 × AST. A practical nomogram based on the model was obtained. The internal validation of ROC curve was statistically significant (AUC = 0.7758). The validation by leave-one-out method showed that the accuracy of the model and the F measure was 0.887 and 0.939, respectively. The predictive model and nomogram based on the preoperative data of patients undergoing LPD can be useful for predicting the risk degree of postoperative hemorrhage.

An essential technique for modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: minimally invasive biliary reconstruction

Introduction: Minimally invasive reconstruction of the biliary tract is complex and involves multiple steps. The procedure is challenging and has been an essential technique in modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery in recent years. Additionally, the quality of the reconstruction directly affects long-and short-term complications and affects the prognosis and quality of life. Various minimally invasive reconstruction methods have been developed to improve the reconstruction effect; however, the optimal method remains controversial. Areas covered: In this study, were viewed published studies of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction within the last 5 years and discussed the current status and main complications of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction. More importantly, we introduced the current reconstruction strategies and technical details of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction, which may be potentially helpful for surgeons to choose reconstruction methods and improve reconstruction quality. Expert opinion: Although several improved and modified methods for biliary reconstruction have been developed recently, no single approach is optimal or adaptable to all situations. Patient-specific selection of appropriate technical strategies according to different situations combined with sophisticated and skilled minimally invasive techniques effectively improves the quality of anastomosis and reduces complications.

Laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: Initial single center experience

Backgrounds/Aims

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the gold standard for the treatment of periampullary tumors. Many specialized centers have adopted the totally laparoscopic or hybrid laparoscopic PD (LPD). However, this procedure has not yet been standardized and serious debate is taking place towards its safety and feasibility. Herein, we report our recent experience whit hybrid-LPD.

Methods

During 2019 in our department 56 PD were performed and 21 (37.5%) underwent hybrid-LPD. We have retrospectively reviewed the short-term outcomes of these patients.

Results

Main indication was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (71,4%). The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were respectively 425 min (range, 226 to 576) and 317 ml (range 60 to 800 ml). Conversion to an open procedure was required in 4 patients (19%): 2 with suspected vein involvement, 1 for mesenteric panniculitis and 1 for biliary injury. The post-operative complication rate was 42.8% (9/21). Regarding post-operative pancreatic fistula, three patients (14.2%) had grade B and 1 grade C (4.7%). Median length of hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-23) and 90- days mortality was 4.7%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.7 (range 12 to 26). The rate of margins R0 was 80%; R1 ＞0<1 mm was 10.5% and R1 0 mm was 9.5%.

Conclusions

Hydrid-LPD is safe and feasible. Careful patient selection and increasing experience can reduce the risk of post-operative complications.

Robotic-assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technique Description and Performance Evaluation After 60 Cases

PURPOSE

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal operations. During the implementation of new surgical technologies, safety and efficacy outcomes must be rigorously monitored and the learning curve clearly identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors investigated their experience during the adoption of RPD, analyzing the outcomes of our first 60 consecutive cases, divided into group A (1 to 30) and group B (31 to 60). The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to define the learning curve.

RESULTS

The authors observed a reduction in operative time (125 min) and estimated blood loss (185 mL) between the firsts 1 to 30 and the latest 30 cases. The overall rate of complications showed the tendency to decrease during the experience (46.7% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02), conversely, severe complications and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not show a significant reduction in the incidence (P=0.37 and P=0.67, respectively). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested improved significantly after 30 cases (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance improved significantly after the first 30 cases.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only.

RESULTS

The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I2 = 12, χ2 = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.50, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival after MIPD is non-inferior to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.

[Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas]

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery lags behind the development of other fields of application of minimally invasive surgery. After a very slow development over the last two decades minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has currently gained wider acceptance especially in centers. This is due if nothing else, to the increasing availability of robotic assistance systems, which provide maneuverable instruments as well as a 3‑dimensional and enlarged view. Meanwhile, the technical feasibility for even complex pancreatic resections has been shown. This gives rise to the question whether laparoscopic or robotic techniques can generate equal or better results (evidence) with respect to perioperative morbidity, survival after oncological resection and the quality of life. As with all innovative techniques, which are implemented in surgery, the transferability to a wider audience, teaching methods and cost-effectiveness have to be evaluated. This article presents the current scientific evidence for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic head and left-sided pancreatic surgery.

Practice Patterns and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in China: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of 1029 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes of patients who have undergone laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in China.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LPD is being increasingly used worldwide, but an extensive, detailed, systematic, multicenter analysis of the procedure has not been performed.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1029 consecutive patients who had undergone LPD between January 2010 and August 2016 in China. Univariate and multivariate analyses of patient demographics, changes in outcome over time, technical learning curves, and the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and patient outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 1029 patients, 61 (5.93%) required conversion to laparotomy. The median operation time (OT) was 441.34 minutes, and the major complications occurred in 511 patients (49.66%). There were 21 deaths (2.43%) within 30 days, and a total of 61 (5.93%) within 90 days. Discounting the effects of the early learning phase, critical parameters improved significantly with surgeons' experience with the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the pancreatic anastomosis technique, preoperative biliary drainage method, and total bilirubin were linked to several outcome measures, including OT, estimated intraoperative blood loss, and mortality. Multicenter analyses of the learning curve revealed 3 phases, with proficiency thresholds at 40 and 104 cases. Higher hospital, department, and surgeon volume, as well as surgeon experience with minimally invasive surgery, were associated with a lower risk of surgical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is technically safe and feasible, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, long learning curves, low-volume hospitals, and surgical inexperience are associated with higher rates of complications and mortality.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of nonpancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in place of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the results of LPD versus OPD in non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinoma (NPPC), a less aggressive tumor.

METHODS

Here, 488 NPPC patients who underwent LPD or OPD were analyzed in this study. The propensity score matching was used to balance the patients in two groups. Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the differences between LPD and OPD in patients with NPPC.

RESULTS

The LPD group had shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and less postoperative hospital stay than OPD group. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were significantly lower in LPD than in OPD group. There was no statistical difference in long-term survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For NPPC, LPD may be the preferred surgical treatment due to its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative blood loss and short-term mortality.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Fistula risk score-adjusted comparison of postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate a risk-adjusted comparison of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula POPF (CR-POPF) following laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) using the fistula risk score (FRS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 579 patients who underwent LPD (n = 274) or OPD (n = 305) between 2012 and 2019 at two tertiary hospitals. Using the FRS, the risk was stratified into four categories; negligible, low, intermediate and high risk.

RESULTS

The median FRS was significantly higher in the LPD than in the OPD group (5.4 ± 1.2 vs 3.9 ± 1.8, P < .001). The overall incidence of CR-POPF in the LPD vs OPD groups were 16.4% vs 17.7% (P = .187). When POPF risks were stratified by FRS, CR-POPF following LPD vs OPD in patients with low risk (0% vs 6.3%, P = .294), intermediate risk (16.1% vs 22.9%, P = .053) and high risk (33.3% vs 27.3%, P = .577) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher risk score in the LPD group, the CR-POPF was similar following both procedures in the unadjusted and FRS-risk-adjusted comparisons. The CR-POPF was more significantly affected by patient risk factors such as the soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Current statement and safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the pancreas

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of a minimally invasive approach is accumulating thanks to prospective and randomized controlled studies. Minimally invasive surgery provides advantages to the surgeon due to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot, but should be considered only in selected patients and in high-volume centers. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant tumors has established a secure position over open distal pancreatectomy, since it is associated with a shorter hospital stay, reduced blood loss, and equivalent complication rates. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma appears to be a feasible, safe, and oncologically equivalent technique in experienced hands. On the other hand, the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The choice of either technique among open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches depends on surgeons' experience and hospital resources with a focus on patient safety. Further studies are needed to prove the perioperative and oncological advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery in the pancreas. Here, we review the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and its safe implementation.

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.

The effectiveness, risks and improvement of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Propensity score-matched analyses comparing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) that consider the effect of the learning curve for LPD are lacking. We use Propensity score-matched to compare the safety and efficacy of LPD during the learning curve to OPD.

Methods

The medical records of 296 consecutive patients who had undergone LPD or OPD between September 2016 and August 2019 at Fujian Provincial Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with LPD were matched 1:1 to those treated with OPD. Calculation of propensity scores considered age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, pathology, incidence of obstructive jaundice, incidence of biliary drainage, pancreatic texture, pancreatic duct diameter, previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, and case distribution of the surgical team.

Results

After propensity score matching, 196 patients were divided into two groups: 98 patients in the LPD group and 98 patients in the OPD group. LPD performed during the learning curve was associated with a longer median operative time (OT) (432 vs. 328 min, P<0.001), a higher incidence of major surgery-associated complications (32.7% vs. 14.3%, P=0.002), a higher incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (27.6% vs. 13.3%, P=0.013), and prolonged LOS (21.06 d vs. 16.94 d, P=0.033), but lower median intraoperative blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P<0.001) compared to OPD. Mean OT and LOS were significantly shorter in the late phase of the learning curve for LPD (P<0.001), and were similar to that for OPD. Age >60 years and a non-dilated MPD were significant predictors of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, major surgery-associated complications, prolonged LOS and postoperative mortality at 90 days (all P<0.05).

Conclusions

OT, incidence of major surgery-associated complications, and LOS were significantly increased in patients that underwent LPD, but were significantly improved during the learning curve. Elderly patients and patients with a non-dialated MPD should not be treated with LPD performed by inexperienced surgeons.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Before this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatectomy is gaining momentum; however, limited data exist on the long-term survival of this approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this study is to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open surgery in patients with PDAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Robotic and open pancreatectomy for stages I-III PDAC were obtained from the 2010 to 2016 National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We identified 17 831 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 2718 distal pancreatectomies of which 626 (4%) and 332 (12%) were robotic, respectively. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD (22.0 months) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (21.8 months; logrank P = .755). The adjusted hazard ratio [HR] was 1.014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.903-1.139). The median overall survival for RDP (35.3 months) was higher than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (24.9 months; logrank P = .001). The adjusted HR suggests a benefit to RDP compared to ODP (HR, 0.744; 95% CI: 0.632-0.868) CONCLUSION: In a national cohort of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the robotic platform was associated with similar long-term survival for pancreaticoduodenectomy, but improved survival for distal pancreatectomy.

The Yonsei experience of 104 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies: a propensity score-matched analysis with open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

With continued technical advances in surgical instruments and growing expertise, several surgeons have performed laparoscopic pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) safely with good results, and the laparoscopic approach is being performed more frequently. We performed over 100 cases of L-PPPD and compared their outcomes to those of open PPPD (O-PPPD) using the large sample size. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD.

METHODS

From September 2012 to June 2017, PPPD was performed for 217 patients at Yonsei University Severance Hospital by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent O-PPPD (n = 113) and those who underwent L-PPPD (n = 104). We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographic and surgical outcomes. We also reviewed all previous studies of more than 100 cases.

RESULTS

The L-PPPD group had lesser intraoperative blood loss than the O-PPPD group (548.1 ml vs. 244.7 ml; p < 0.001). Both groups showed similar rates of negative resection margins (99.1% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.196). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between O-PPPD and L-PPPD (39.8% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.519). The clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates in the O-PPPD and L-PPPD groups were 18.8% and 13.5%, respectively (p = 0.311). There was no difference in 30- and 90-day mortality rates between the two groups (p = 0.479). Similar results were obtained after PSM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

L-PPPD can be a good alternative option for well-selected patients with periampullary lesions requiring PPPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC.

METHODS

The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for PDAC between January 2013 and September 2017 were retrieved. Their postoperative outcomes and survival were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients were included. After a 2:1 matching, 93 cases in the OPD group and 55 in the LPD group were identified. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE), particularly grade B/C DGE, occurred less frequently in the LPD group than in the OPD group (1.8% vs. 36.6%, P < 0.001; 1.8% vs. 22.6%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LPD group than in the OPD group (49.1% vs. 71.0%, P = 0.008), whereas the rates of major complications were similar (10.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.590). In addition, the median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (20.0 vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

LPD was found to be technically feasible with efficacy similar to OPD for patients with PDAC.

Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, P < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, P = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, P < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, P = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, P < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), P < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, P = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, P = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, P = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, P < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.

Propensity score-matching analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients

There is little evidence on the safety and benefits of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients; therefore, we evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of this procedure by comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1,693 patients who underwent PD to manage periampullary tumours at a single institution between January 2014 and June 2017. Of these patients, 326 were elderly patients aged ≥70 years, with 56 patients allocated to the LPD group and 270 to the OPD group. One-to-one propensity score matching (56:56) was used to match the baseline characteristics of patients who underwent LPD and OPD. LPD was associated with significantly fewer clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (7.1% vs. 21.4%), fewer analgesic injections (10 vs. 15.6 times; p = 0.022), and longer operative time (321.8 vs. 268.5 minutes; p = 0.001) than OPD in elderly patients. There were no significant differences in 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates between the LPD and OPD groups. LPD had acceptable perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with OPD in elderly patients. LPD is a reliable treatment option for elderly patients with periampullary tumours.

Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma

It is not clear which of the 2 principal treatments for patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), has greater safety and efficacy. We performed the present meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of both treatments for PDAC patients undergoing LPD. Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to October 2018) comparing LPD with OPD for PDAC. Short- and long-term oncological outcomes were evaluated. Six studies were qualified for inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis with a total of 9144 PDAC participants. Regarding safety, there were fewer overall postoperative complications associated with LPD (P = 0.005), but the results were similar in terms of pancreatic fistula and mortality. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a better trend of performance both in R0 resection (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.07; P = 0.07) and preserved lymph nodes (median, 2.14; 95% CI, -0.21 to 4.49; P = 0.07). Long-term overall survival was comparable between LPD and OPD (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.13; P = 0.49). In conclusion, LPD was found to be a suitable alternative to OPD in selected PDAC patients with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) seem promising, but long-term outcomes of LPD for pancreatic cancer (PC) warrant further investigation. Methods: A systematic research of various databases was performed to identify studies analyzing long-term outcomes in LPD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PC. Survival parameters of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted. The search was last conducted before May 23, 2018. Results: A total of 10 studies involving 11,180 patients (1437 in LPD and 9743 in OPD) met the final inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed that LPD was associated with longer DFS compared with OPD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 0.98, P = .033). No significant difference in OS was found between LPD and OPD (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.07, P = .672). In addition, patients of LPD had much shorter time to receive postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy compared with OPD (weighted mean difference: -10.17, 95% CI: -17.90 to -2.45, P = .010). Discussion: With regard to long-term survival, LPD is comparable with OPD for PC. Furthermore, LPD is associated with longer DFS compared with OPD. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are still essential to further demonstrate the advantages of LPD for PC.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN BODY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Propensity score-matched analysis of early outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a feasible option for periampullary tumours. However, it remains a complex procedure with no proven advantages over open PD (OPD). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic-assisted PD (LAPD) and OPD using a propensity score-matched analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 40 patients who underwent PD for periampullary tumours between January 2014 and December 2016 was conducted. The patients were matched 1:1 for age, gender, body mass index, Charlson comorbidty index, tumour size and haematological indices. Peri-operative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

LAPD appeared to have a longer median operative time as compared to OPD (LAPD, 425 min (285-597) versus OPD, 369 min (260-500)) (P = 0.066). Intra-operative blood loss was comparable between both groups. Respiratory complications were five times higher in the OPD group (LAPD, 5% versus OPD, 25%) (P = 0.077), while LAPD patients required less time to start ambulating post-operatively (LAPD, 2 days versus OPD, 2 days) (P = 0.021). Pancreas-specific complications and morbidity/mortality rates were similar.

CONCLUSION

LAPD is a safe alternative to OPD in a select group of patients for an institution starting out with minimally invasive PD, and can be used to bridge the learning curve required for total laparoscopic PD.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

Long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic techniques in pancreatic cancer

The laparoscopic technique in distal pancreatic resection (LDP) has been widely accepted, and outcome data support the hypothesis that survival is improved, partly due to improved postoperative safety and recovery, thus optimizing treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. But laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD or Whipple-procedures) has spread more slowly, due to the complexity of the procedure. Surgical safety has been a problem in hospitals with low patient volume, resulting in raised postoperative mortality, requiring careful monitoring of outcome during the surgical learning curve. Robotic assistance is expected to improve surgical safety, but data on long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic Whipple procedures with or without robotic assistance is scarce. Future research should still focus surgical safety, but most importantly long term outcome, recorded as recurrence at maximal follow up or - at best - overall long term survival (OS). Available data show median survival above 2.5 years, five year OS more than 30% after LDP even in series with suboptimal adjuvant chemotherapy. Also after LPD, long term survival is reported equal to or longer than open resection. However, surgical safety during the learning curve of LPD is a problem, which hopefully can be facilitated by robotic assistance. Patient reported outcome should also be an endpoint in future trials, including patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Minimally invasive management of the entire treatment sequence in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a propensity-score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may offer optimal oncologic outcome with low morbidity. However, the relative benefit of MIS compared to open surgery in patients requiring multistage resections has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent totally minimally invasive (TMI) or totally open (TO) resections of CRC primary and liver metastases (CLM) in 2009-2016 were analyzed. Inverse probability of weighted adjustment by propensity score was performed before analyzing risk factors for complications and survival.

RESULTS

The study included 43 TMI and 121 TO patients. Before and after adjustment, TMI patients had significantly less cumulated postoperative complications (41% vs. 59%, p = 0.001), blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 4.5 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified TO approach vs. MIS (OR = 2.4, p < 0.001), major liver resection (OR = 4.4, p < 0.001), and multiple CLM (OR = 2.3, p = 0.001) as independent risk factors for complications. 5-year overall survival was comparable (81% vs 68%, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRC undergoing multistage surgical treatment, MIS resection contributes to optimal perioperative outcomes without compromise in oncologic outcomes.

Expanding laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy: major findings based on systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.