Splenic preservation versus splenectomy in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

Analysis of Factors Determining Spleen Preservation during Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy - A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Spleen preservation during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) should be pursued if safe and oncologically justified. The aim of the presented study was to compare surgical outcomes and identify risk factors for unplanned splenectomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and evaluate short and long-terms outcomes.

METHODS

The following study is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, with the intention of preserving the spleen, for benign tumors of the body and tail of the pancreas between August 2012 and December 2022. Follow-up for patients' survival was completed in January 2023. In all, 106 patients were in total included in this study. Median age was 58 (41 to 67) years. The study population included 29 males (27.4%) and 77 females (72.6%).

RESULTS

Spleen preservation was possible in 67 (63.2%) patients. The tumor size was larger in the splenectomy group (respectively, 30 (16.5 to 49) vs. 15 (11 to 25); P <0.001). Overall, serious postoperative morbidity was 13.4% in the LSPDP group and 20.5% in the second group ( P =0.494). There were no perioperative deaths. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate was 18% in the splenectomy group and 14.9% in the LSPDP group, while B and C fistulas were diagnosed in 15.4% and 10.5% of patients, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression model, tumor size >3 cm was found to independently increase odds for unplanned splenectomy (OR 8.41, 95%CI 2.89-24.46; standardized for BMI).

CONCLUSION

Unplanned splenectomy during the attempt of LSPDP does not increase the risk for postoperative morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula. The independent risk factor for unplanned splenectomy during LSPDP is tumor size above 3 cm.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: international multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

International guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) recommend a formal oncological resection including splenectomy when distal pancreatectomy is indicated. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy in patients with presumed IPMN.

METHODS

An international, retrospective cohort study was undertaken in 14 high-volume centres from 7 countries including consecutive patients after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN (2005-2019). Patients were divided into spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). The primary outcome was lymph node metastasis (LNM). Secondary outcomes were overall survival, duration of operation, blood loss, and secondary splenectomy.

RESULTS

Overall, 700 patients were included after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN; 123 underwent SPDP (17.6%) and 577 DPS (82.4%). The rate of malignancy was 29.6% (137 patients) and the overall rate of LNM 6.7% (47 patients). Patients with preoperative suspicion of malignancy had a LNM rate of 17.2% (23 of 134) versus 4.3% (23 of 539) among patients without suspected malignancy (P < 0.001). Overall, SPDP was associated with a shorter operating time (median 180 versus 226 min; P = 0.001), less blood loss (100 versus 336 ml; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (5 versus 8 days; P < 0.001). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between SPDP and DPS for IPMN after correction for prognostic factors (HR 0.50, 95% c.i. 0.22 to 1.18; P = 0.504).

CONCLUSION

This international cohort study found LNM in 6.7% of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for IPMN. In patients without preoperative suspicion of malignancy, SPDP seemed oncologically safe and was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with DPS.

Splenectomy and tumor size are risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

<b><br>Introduction:</b> The determinants influencing the risk for complications of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) are not yet fully defined, thus we aimed to determine risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity after LDP with spleen preservation, LDP and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas (RAMPS).</br> <b><br>Material and methods:</b> Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients that underwent LDP between January 2019 and December 2022. The study group included cases of serious perioperative morbidity (III-V grades in Clavien-Dindo classification) during a 30-day period after operation. The control group consisted of patients without serious perioperative morbidity. As many as 142 patients were included in the study.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Serious perioperative morbidity was found in 33 (23.24%) operated patients, while mortality in 3 cases (2.11%). Serious perioperative morbidity after LDP with spleen preservation was found in 9/68 (13.2%) patients (27.3% of the perioperative morbidity group). Thirteen out of 51 patients, i.e. 25.5%, after LDP with splenectomy were included in the perioperative morbidity group (39.4%). Serious perioperative morbidity after RAMPS was found in 11/23 (47.8%) patients (33.3% of the perioperative morbidity group). In multivariate logistic regression, the need for splenectomy during pancreatectomy (OR 3.66, 95%CI 1.20-11.18) and tumor above 28 millimeters in size (OR 3.01, 95%CI 1.19-9.59) were independent risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> The need for splenectomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and tumor size above 28 millimeters were independent risk factors for serious perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.</br>.

Comparison of Spleen-Preservation Versus Splenectomy in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Spleen-preservation during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) can be technically challenging and remains controversial. Our primary aim was to compare MIDP and splenectomy with spleen-preserving MIDP. Secondarily, we compared two spleen-preserving techniques.

METHODS

Adults undergoing MIDP (2007-2021) were retrospectively included in this single-center study. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between spleen-preservation and splenectomy and between the two spleen-preserving techniques were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data, and Fisher's exact test for categorical data.

RESULTS

Of the 293 patients who underwent MIDP, preservation of the spleen was intended in 208 (71%) patients. Spleen-preservation was achieved in 174 patients (84%) via the Warshaw technique (130; 75%) or vessel-preservation (44; 25%). The spleen-preserving group had shorter length of stay (3 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer conversions to open (1 vs 12, p < 0.01) and less blood loss (p < 0.01) compared to the splenectomy group. Operative (OR) times were comparable (229 vs 214 min, p = 0.67). Except for the operative time, which was longer for the Warshaw technique (245 vs 183 min, p = 0.01), no other differences between the two spleen-preserving techniques were found. At a median follow-up of 43 (IQR 18-79) months after spleen-preservation, only 2 (1.1%) patients had required splenectomy (1 partial splenectomy for infarct/abscess after Warshaw, 1 for variceal bleeding after vessel-preserving).

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preservation is not associated with increased risk of blood loss, longer hospital stay, conversion, nor lengthy OR times. Late splenectomy is very rarely required. Given the immune consequences of splenectomy, spleen-preservation should be strongly considered in MIDP.

Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy-how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSION

This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is a validated tool for outcome assessment and international comparison of best achievable surgical outcomes. The methodology is increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and the aim of the review was to critically compare available benchmark studies evaluating distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A literature search of English articles reporting on benchmarking DP was conducted of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (until April 2023). Studies on open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic DP (RDP) were included.

RESULTS

Four retrospective multicenter studies were included. Studies reported on outcomes of minimally invasive DP only (n = 2), ODP and LDP (n = 1), and RDP only (n = 1). Either the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ method or the 75th percentile from the median was selected to define benchmark cutoffs. Robust and reproducible benchmark values were provided by the four studies for intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking DP is a valuable tool for obtaining internationally accepted reference outcomes for open and minimally invasive DP approaches with only minor variances in four international cohorts. Benchmark cutoffs allow for outcome comparisons between institutions, surgeons, and to monitor the introduction of novel minimally invasive DP techniques.

Short-term Outcomes After Spleen-preserving Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy With or Without Preservation of Splenic Vessels: A Pan-European Retrospective Study in High-volume Centers

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term clinical outcomes after Kimura and Warshaw MIDP.

BACKGROUND

Spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy can be achieved by either preservation (Kimura) or resection (Warshaw) of the splenic vessels. Multicenter studies reporting outcomes of Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP are scarce.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study including consecutive MIDP procedures intended to be spleen-preserving from 29 high-volume centers (≥15 distal pancreatectomies annually) in 8 European countries. Primary outcomes were secondary splenectomy for ischemia and major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) complications. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of excluding ("rescue") Warshaw procedures which were performed in centers that typically (>75%) performed Kimura MIDP.

RESULTS

Overall, 1095 patients after MIDP were included with successful splenic preservation in 878 patients (80%), including 634 Kimura and 244 Warshaw procedures. Rates of clinically relevant splenic ischemia (0.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.127) and major complications (11.5% vs 14.4%, P = 0.308) did not differ significantly between Kimura and Warshaw MIDP, respectively. Mortality rates were higher after Warshaw MIDP (0.0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.023), and decreased in the sensitivity analysis (0.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.052). Kimura MIDP was associated with longer operative time (202 vs 184 minutes, P = 0.033) and less blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P < 0.001) as compared to Warshaw MIDP. Unplanned splenectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate (20.7% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP provide equivalent short-term outcomes with low rates of secondary splenectomy and postoperative morbidity. Further analyses of long-term outcomes are needed.

Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods.

RESULTS

Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively.

CONCLUSION

Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

OUP accepted manuscript

There are two techniques for a spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP): SPDP with splenic vessel preservation, and SPDP with splenic vessel resection. In some cases, although the splenic artery (SpA) can be preserved, the splenic vein (SpV) must be resected. We report the short- and long-term outcomes of three patients who underwent a new technique of laparoscopic SPDP with SpA preservation and SpV resection (SPDP-VRes). A grade B pancreatic fistula, which occurred in two patients, was successfully treated with drainage tube management. In all cases, the omental branches of the left gastroepiploic vein functioned as a drainage vein, and there was no splenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, or varix formation during the follow-up period (19 months to 5 years). Patients undergoing laparoscopic SPDP-VRes had no severe complications during the follow-up period; preserving the left omental branch is a key to this procedure. Laparoscopic SPDP-VRes might be a useful treatment option for patients undergoing SPDP.

Quantitative analysis of three-dimensional reconstruction data to guide the selection of methods for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To explore the risk factors of splenic vessel preservation in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and to guide with the appropriate selection of surgical methods through three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients suffering from benign or low-grade malignant tumors of pancreatic body and tail having undergone LDP in Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital from January 2014 to September 2019 were selected for quantitative analysis of the anatomical data of patients' pancreas, tumors, splenic vessels and spleens by 3D reconstruction. According to the final surgical methods, the patients were divided into the laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation (lap-SVP) group and the non-lap-SVP group. Clinical data of the two groups were compared to assess the risk factors for surgical failure of lap-SVP and logistic regression model was applied to predict the choice of surgical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients were included in the study, including 144 in the lap-SVP group and 74 in the non-lap-SVP group. Multivariate analysis confirms that large tumor volume, large contact area between the pancreas to be resected and the splenic vein, and large maximum ratio of the circumference of the splenic vessel embedded in the pancreas to be resected to the circumference of the splenic vessel are independent risk factors for surgical failure of lap-SVP (OR > 1, P < .05). The prediction accuracy of lap-SVP operation by the logistic regression reaches up to 80.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

3D reconstruction can provide essential basis for the surgical method selection of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

"Kimura-first" strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) is an ideal procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors in the distal pancreas, and two splenic preservation techniques (the Kimura and Warshaw techniques) can be used for RSPDP. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the "Kimura-first" strategy for RSPDP and to investigate the risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) between October 2016 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors influencing preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during RDP.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients scheduled for RSPDP who received RDP were included in this study [Kimura technique, 41 patients; Warshaw technique, 11 patients; and robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (RDPS), 9 patients]. The overall splenic preservation rate with RDP was 85.2% (52/61). The preservation rate of splenic vessels with the Kimura technique with RSPDP was 78.8% (41/52). The RSPDP group had remarkably less estimated blood loss (EBL; median 50 vs. 300 mL, P=0.000) and a lower morbidity rate (13.5% vs. 44.4%, P=0.047) than the RDPS group. The logistic regression models showed that obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor was an independent risk factor for splenic vessel preservation with RSPDP (OR 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.271, P=0.003) and RDP (OR 0.019, 95% CI: 0.002-0.176, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The "Kimura-first" strategy is feasible and safe for RSPDP, with high rates of splenic and splenic vessel preservation. Obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor can be used as a predictor of splenic vessel preservation with planned RDP.

Dynamic hematological changes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: a population-based cohort study

Background

The clinical outcomes of patients who received distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS) and spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) have been generally investigated. However, postoperative hematological changes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy are poorly understood.

Methods

Information from patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) between January 2014 and June 2019 at a single institution was reviewed. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare dynamic hematological changes between different groups.

Results

A total of 302 patients who underwent DP were enrolled. In the long term, most postoperative hematological parameters remained significantly higher than preoperative levels in the DPS group, while postoperative lymphocyte, monocyte, basophil, and platelet levels returned to preoperative levels in the SPDP group. All postoperative hematological parameters except for red blood cell count and serum hemoglobulin level were significantly higher in the DPS group than in the SPDP group. There were no significant differences in hematological changes between the splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw technique (WT) groups.

Conclusions

Postoperative hematological changes were significantly different between the DPS and SPDP groups. Compared to DPS, SPDP reduced abnormal hematological changes caused by splenectomy. SVP and WT were comparable in terms of postoperative hematological changes.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Organ-Sparing Resection for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are rare neoplasms associated with a long life expectancy after resection. In this setting, patients may benefit from laparoscopic organ-sparing resection. Studies of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed for patients with PNENs who underwent laparoscopic organ-sparing pancreatectomy between March 2005 and May 2018. The patients' demographic data, operative results, pathological reports, hospital courses and morbidity, mortality, and follow-up data (until August 2018) were analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis. There were 9 male and 26 female patients, with a median age of 46 years (range 25-75 years). The mean BMI was 24.6 ± 3.3 kg/m². Nine patients received laparoscopic enucleation (LE), 20 received laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP), and 6 received laparoscopic central pancreatectomy. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative hospital stay were 186.4 ± 60.2 min, 165 ± 73.0 ml, 0 days, and 9 days (range 5-23 days), respectively. The morbidity rate, grade ≥ III complication rate, and grade ≥ B pancreatic fistula rate were 34.2%, 11.4%, and 8.7%, respectively, with no mortality. The rate of follow-up was 94.3%, and the median follow-up time was 55 months (range 3-158 months). One patient developed recurrence 36 months after LE and was managed with surgical resection. The other patients survived without metastases or recurrence during the follow-up. One patient had diabetes after LSPDP, and no patients had symptoms of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Nineteen patients who underwent LSPDP (16 with the Kimura technique and 3 with the Warshaw technique) were followed. Normal patency of the splenic artery and vein was observed in 14 and 14 patients within 1 month of surgery and in 15 and 14 patients 6 months or more after the operation, respectively. Partial splenic infarction was observed in 3 patients within 1 month of surgery and in no patients 6 months or more after the operation. Three patients eventually developed collateral venous vessels around the gastric fundus and reserved spleen, with one case of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for selected cases of PNENs is safe and feasible and has favourable short- and long-term outcomes.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation

BACKGROUND

The studies comparing laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients undergoing LSPDP and LDPS.

METHODS

Between March 2004 and December 2014, patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups as LSPDP and LDPS. Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire).

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients (50 LSPDP and 60 LDPS) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The LSPDP group had a significantly shorter operative time(153.3 ± 46.2 vs. 179.9 ± 54.1 min, p = 0.015) than the LDPS group. Also in analysis of propensity-matched population(LSPDP:LDPS = 35:35, 1:1 matching), LSPDP group still had a significantly shorter operative time (159.3 ± 36.2 vs. 172.9 ± 44.1 min, p = 0.045) than the LDPS group.There were no significant differences with respect to estimated blood loss, first flatus time, diet start time, and postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, pancreatic fistula rates, and mortality, were similar in the LSPDP and LDPS group. On the follow-up survey, the total quality of life score (635.8 ± 50.7 vs. 596.1 ± 92.1)was higher in the LSPDP group compared with the LDPS group. However, the differences were not statistically significant(p > 0.05). The score in vitality (82.5 ± 14.4 vs. 68.9 ± 11.4, p = 0.046) was significantly higher in LSPDP group and not statistically significant in other areas (p > 0.05).Similar results of quality of life assessment were found in analysis of propensity-matched population.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LDPS, LSPDP had shorter operating time and better quality of life with similar morbidity and recovery period.

Laparoscopic Splenic Vessels and Spleen Preservation Distal Pancreatectomy Via Inferior-Posterior Splenic Vein Approach

BACKGROUND

Preservation of splenic vessels can minimize the risks of splenic infarction and gastric varices in laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy. A well-established procedure would provide high splenic vessels and spleen preservation rate. This study evaluated the outcomes and depending factors of laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy (LsvspDP) via inferior-posterior splenic vein approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent LsvspDP via inferior-posterior splenic vein approach in National Cheng-Kung University Hospital from February 2009 to June 2019. The clinic-pathologic data were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was the learning curve based on the cumulative sum analysis. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate the critical factors for the failure of splenic vessels and spleen preservation.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 64 patients received LsvspDP attempt. Splenic vessels were successfully preserved in 49 patients and the overall spleen preservation rate was 76.6%. According to cumulative sum analysis, the learning curve of LsvspDP was the 33rd case and several plateaus were observed during the learning curve phase. Old age (P=0.001), tail location (P=0.038), and large tumor (P=0.01) were independent risk factors of failed splenic vessels preservation, whereas the cut-off point of tumor size for prediction of spleen preservation was 5.4 cm. The complication rates were 7.8%, 7.8%, and 12.5% for Clavien grade I, II, and III, respectively, and 0% for Clavien grade IV or V. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula-grade B was 14.8%, among which the tail location was lower than the nontail location (0% vs. 24.3%; P=0.008). The mean value of operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were 198±67 minutes, 139±242 mL, and 8.5±5.6 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In LsvspDP, the inferior-posterior splenic vein approach resulted in high splenic vessels and spleen preservation rate. Thirty-three patients were required to overcome the learning curve. Old age, tail location, and large tumor size were independent factors for the failure of splenic vessels preservation, whereas the cut-off value for tumor size was 5.4 cm to predict splenic vessels preservation.