Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors: a learning curve analysis

Evaluating the surgical and oncological outcomes of hepatic artery variations in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: insights from 2023 data at a high-volume pancreatic center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has seen increased adoption due to advancements in surgical techniques and technology. However, the impact of hepatic artery variations (HAV) and clinically relevant HAV (CR-HAV) on MIPD outcomes remains under-investigated. This study aims to explore the differences in surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD with or without HAV and CR-HAV.

METHODS

We enrolled 267 consecutive patients who underwent MIPD at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between January and December 2023. HAV was identified preoperatively through enhanced abdominal CT and three-dimensional reconstruction, and classified according to the Michels and Hiatt systems. Clinically relevant hepatic artery variations (CR-HAV) were defined based on their potential impact on the surgical approach. We collected and analyzed perioperative data and oncological outcomes between patients with and without HAV and CR-HAV. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize baseline confounding. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.

RESULTS

HAV was identified in 26.1% of patients, and CR-HAV in 18.9%. The median operation time was significantly longer in HAV (+) group compared to HAV (-) group (6.72 vs. 5.80 h, p = 0.013). No significant differences were found between HAV/CR-HAV (+) and (-) groups regarding intraoperative blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, postoperative complications, surgical mortality, length of stay, re-operation, and re-admission. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between HAV/CR-HAV (+) and (-) groups in the malignant cohort.

CONCLUSION

HAV and CR-HAV do not significantly impact overall or progression-free survival in patients undergoing MIPD. While HAV is associated with longer operation times, other perioperative and oncological outcomes remain comparable between HAV/CR-HAV (+) and (-) groups.

Short-term surgical outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: A comparative, single-center, retrospective study

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gradually gaining popularity, their advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of OPD, LPD, and RPD to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 16 LPD, 43 RPD, and 36 OPD procedures performed at a single center between April 2020 and May 2024. Clinical data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs, were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

RPD demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (553 min) than OPD (446 min) and LPD (453 min) but a significantly lower estimated blood loss than OPD (150 mL vs. 400 mL, p < .001). Postoperative complication rates (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) were lower for RPD (24.4%) than those for OPD (50.0%) and LPD (68.8%). RPD also showed a significantly lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (14.6% vs. 38.9% for OPD and 43.8% for LPD) and a shorter duration of hospitalization (11 vs. 28 days for OPD and 21 days for LPD, p < .001). Hospitalization costs were higher for RPD (20 109 USD) than for OPD (18 487 USD, p < .001), with LPD (20 496 USD) and RPD costs being similar.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD appears to offer advantages in terms of reduced blood loss and postoperative complications and shortened hospital stay despite longer operative times and higher hospitalization costs. Therefore, RPD may be a more beneficial approach than OPD or LPD in pancreatic surgery.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and totally laparoscopic PD after overcoming learning curves with comparison of oncologic outcomes between open PD and minimally invasive PD

Backgrounds/Aims

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD.

Results

Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180).

Conclusions

Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with combined venous vascular resection: A comparative analysis with open approach

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer.

Methods

Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed.

Results

MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien-Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95-67.14] vs. median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97-58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47-48.65] vs. median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80-47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45-47.27] vs. 48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16-58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03-31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44-43.27]; p = 0.740).

Conclusions

MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

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.

Artisential®-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: a comparative analysis with Robot(Da Vinci®)-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) helps further improve the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, it faces challenges such as high costs and limitations in availability at different centers, making it difficult for patients to access. In this study, we evaluate the initial experience of Artisential®-assisted PD (A-PD) and compare its perioperative outcomes with R-PD, discussing the clinical applicability of A-PD.

METHODS

This study reviewed cases of R-PD and A-PD conducted between 2022 and 2023. A total of 34 patients underwent R-PD, while 26 patients underwent A-PD. Statistical analysis was conducted based on factors related to the patient's surgical procedure and postoperative prognostic indicators.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of surgical factors. There were also no differences in the occurrence of postoperative complications. However, there was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with the Artisential® group having an average of 11.50 ± 5.54 days and the Robot group having 15.06 ± 5.34 days (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

R-PD and A-PD showed no differences in procedures or outcomes. Using a multi-articulated device is beneficial where robot use is challenging.

Learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon with extensive laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy experience

With the development of robotic systems, robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (RPDs) have been increasingly performed. However, the number of cases required by surgeons with extensive laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) experience to overcome the learning curve of RPD remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to analyze and explore the impact of different phases of the learning curve of RPD on perioperative outcomes. Clinical data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed for 100 consecutive patients who underwent RPD performed by a single surgeon. This surgeon had previous experience with LPD, having performed 127 LPDs with low morbidity. The learning curve for RPD was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method based on operation time, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the learning and proficiency phases. Between April 2020 and November 2022, one hundred patients (56 men, 44 women) were included in this study. Based on the CUSUM curve of operation time, the learning curve for RPD was divided into two phases: phase I was the learning phase (cases 1-33) and phase II was the proficiency phase (cases 34-100). The operation time during the proficiency phase was significantly shorter than that during the learning phase. In the learning phase of RPD, no significant increases were observed in estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, severe complications, postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage, clinical pancreatic fistula, or other perioperative complications compared to the proficiency phases of either RPD or LPD. A surgeon with extensive prior experience in LPD can safely surmount the RPD learning curve without increasing morbidity in the learning phase. The proficiency was significantly improved after accumulating experience of 33 RPD cases.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater in a medium-volume center: a propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a medium-volume medical center.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent OPD or LPD for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater (VPC) between January 2017 and June 2022 were acquired retrospectively. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the groups. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Cox regression analysis was used to explore the independent risk factors for DFS.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients with pathologically diagnosed VPC were included. After 1:1 matching, there were 23 cases each in the OPD and LPD groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median DFS in the OPD and LPD groups was identical (16.0 months vs 16.0 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that low levels of alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, positive surgical margin, and lymph node enlargement were independent risk factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

LPD in medium-volume centers with acceptable technical conditions may approach or even achieve the efficacy of LPD in large-volume centers.

Risk-Adjusted Assessment of the Learning Curve for Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Recipients

BACKGROUND

Studies on pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) have been reported. However, only few studies have reported on the learning curve of PLDH. In this report, we aimed to determine the learning curve of PLDH in adult patients using cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) analyses.

METHODS

The data of donors who underwent PLDH at a single center between December 2012 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was evaluated using the CUSUM and RA-CUSUM methods based on surgery duration.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were finally included in the present study. The mean operation time was 393.6 ± 80.3 min. PLDH was converted to laparotomy in three cases (6.3%). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, nine cases (18.8%) had higher-than-grade III postoperative complications and the most frequent complications were biliary complications. The CUSUM graph shows two peaks, at the 13th and 27th case. The multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index ≥ 23 kg/m2 and intraoperative cholangiography were the only factors that were independently associated with longer operation time. Based on these results, an RA-CUSUM analysis was performed to assess the learning curve, which showed a decrease in the learning curve after 33 to 34 PLDH procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after 33 to 34 PLDH procedures. There are relatively many biliary complications, and it is necessary to further examine the method of bile duct transection.

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.

Major Venous Repair or Reconstruction During Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery: A Single Center's Experience

Background: In pancreatic cancer surgery, tumor violation of blood vessels is often considered a contraindication to surgery, especially laparoscopic surgery. We have completed 17 cases of major venous repair or reconstruction during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, and we believe that this surgical method may be safe and feasible based on the skilled laparoscopic techniques. Materials and Methods: Between January 2014 and March 2022, a prospective cohort of 17 patients underwent major venous repair or reconstruction in our department. Among them, 15 cases underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, 1 case underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 1 case underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy. In all of these cases, the pancreatic tumor invaded either portal veins (PV) or superior mesenteric veins. Given these clinical situations, 13 cases accepted laparoscopic venous resection and reconstruction, and 4 cases underwent venous repair. Results: Ten of 17 patients (58.8%) were male. The mean age was 67.1 (range 57-81). All patients' operations were successfully completed without transit to open. The average blocking time of venous resection and reconstruction was 30.1 (range 15-41) minutes and the average time of venous wedge resection and stitching was 24.0 (range 18-30) minutes. After surgeries, there were no complications such as PV stenosis, bleeding, thrombosis, and liver failure. Thirteen patients died within 2 years because of the tumor recurrence, and 4 patients are currently followed by outpatient visits, with no obvious signs of tumor recurrence. Conclusion: Studies have shown that the reconstruction or repair of the major veins under laparoscopic surgery is safe and effective. We recommended that surgeons need to have the basics of open surgery in case laparoscopic surgery cannot be continued, and have proficient laparoscopic surgery techniques combined with extensive training to achieve a learning curve for vascular anastomosis. Clinical Trial Registration number: KY2021SL152-01.

Multidimensional Nomogram to Predict Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is an inherently severe risk of pancreatic resection. Previous research has proposed models that identify risk factors and predict CR-POPF, although these are rarely applicable to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study aimed to evaluate the individual risks of CR-POPF and to propose a nomogram for predicting POPF in MIPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 429 patients who underwent MIPD. In the multivariate analysis, the Akaike information criterion stepwise logistic regression method was used to select the final model to develop the nomogram.

RESULTS

Of 429 patients, 53 (12.4%) experienced CR-POPF. On multivariate analysis, pancreatic texture (p = 0.001), open conversion (p = 0.008), intraoperative transfusion (p = 0.011), and pathology (p = 0.048) were identified as independent predictors of CR-POPF. The nomogram was developed based on patient, pancreatic, operative, and surgeon factors by using the following four additional clinical factors as variables: American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ III, size of pancreatic duct, type of surgical approach, and < 40 cases of MIPD experience.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidimensional nomogram was developed to predict CR-POPF after MIPD. This nomogram and calculator can help surgeons anticipate, select, and manage critical complications.

A duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy for small main pancreatic duct and soft pancreas in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is often associated with significant morbidity and mortality after the Whipple operation. Patient-related factors associated with POPF include soft pancreatic texture and a small main pancreatic duct (MPD). The traditional duct-to-mucosa anastomosis was modified to be easily performed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the simplified pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) method in the prevention of POPF after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with a simplified PJ procedure containing only two duct-to-mucosa sutures and four penetrating-sutures to anastomose the pancreatic parenchyma and jejunal seromuscular layer in our center were retrospectively studied. Demographics and clinical short-term safety were assessed.

RESULTS

All LPD and RPD procedures were successfully performed. The median time of PJ was 17 min, and the median blood loss was 60 mL, with only one patient requiring transfusion. Four patients (4.1%) suffered from clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), including four grade B cases and no grade C cases. For patients with an MPD diameter of 3 mm or less, POPF was noted in two (4%) of the fifty patients, with all cases being grade B. Of the patients with a soft pancreas, only two (4.5%) patients suffered from grade B POPF. One patient (1.0%) experienced a 90-day mortality. Neither the main pancreatic diameter nor pancreatic texture had an impact on postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique is a simple, safe and efficient alternative to prevent POPF after LPD and RPD. This method is suitable for almost all pancreatic conditions, including cases with a small main pancreatic duct and soft pancreas, and has the potential to become the preferred procedure in low-volume pancreatic surgery centers. Our modified duct-to-mucosa PJ, which contains only two duct-to-mucosa sutures and four penetrating-sutures to anastomose the pancreatic parenchyma and jejunal seromuscular layer, is ideal for small MPD and soft pancreas when performing minimally invasive PD and has a low rate of POPF. PJ pancreaticojejunostomy, MPD main pancreatic diameter, PD pancreaticoduodenectomy, POPF postoperative pancreatic fistula.

First assistant experience in total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: accelerating the learning curve for an operator

OBJECTIVE

Compare and analyze clinical data of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) cases for surgeons with / without first assistant experience (FAE) in TLPD. Probe influence of FAE in TLPD on the learning curve for an operator.

METHODS

The clinical data of 239 patients, that underwent TLPD performed by two surgeons between January 2017 and January 2022) in our department, were consecutively collected and divided into two groups (A and B). Group A cases were operated by Surgeon A, with FAE of 57 TLPDs in our department prior to initial TLPD as an operator. Group B cases were operated by Surgeon B with no FAE of TLPD. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) method developed learning curves. Clinical data and both surgeons' learning curves were statistically compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Between both groups, no statistically significant variations were observed for pre-operative health conditions. Reduced surgical duration, blood loss and transfusion volume during surgery, together with reductions in major post-operative complication rates and reduced hospital/ICU stays were identified within Group A, having statistically significant variations. The technical plateau phases of the learning curves were approximately 25-41 cases and 35-51 cases, for Surgeon A and Surgeon B, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FAE in TLPD can accelerate the learning curve of TLPD for an operator, with safer surgical procedures and enhanced post-operative recovery.

Development of a difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in the initial stage of the learning curve: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It remains uncertain how surgeons can safely pass the learning curve of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) without potentially harming patients. We aimed to develop a difficulty scoring system (DSS) to select an appropriate patient for surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 773 elective pancreatoduodenectomy surgeries between July 2014 and December 2019, including 346 LPD and 427 open pancreatoduodenectomy cases, were included. A 10-level DSS for LPD was developed, and an additional 77 consecutive LPD surgeries which could provide information of the learning stage I of LPD externally validated its performance between December 2019 and December 2021.

RESULTS

The incidences of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo≥III) gradually decreased from the learning curve stage I-III (20.00, 10.94, 5.79%, P =0.008, respectively). The DSS consisted of the following independent risk factors: (1) tumor location, (2) vascular resection and reconstruction, (3) learning curve stage, (4) prognostic nutritional index, (5) tumor size, and (6) benign or malignant tumor. The weighted Cohen's κ statistic of concordance between the reviewer's and calculated difficulty score index was 0.873. The C -statistics of DSS for postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo≥III) were 0.818 in the learning curve stage I. The patients with DSS<5 had lower postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo≥III) than those with DSS≥5 (4.35-41.18%, P =0.004) in the training cohort and had a lower postoperative pancreatic fistula (19.23-57.14%, P =0.0352), delayed gastric emptying (19.23-71.43%, P =0.001), and bile leakage rate (0.00-21.43%, P =0.0368) in validation cohort in the learning curve stage I.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a difficulty score model for patient selection, which could facilitate the stepwise adoption of LPD for surgeons at different stages of the learning curve.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci XI system: initial experience and learning curve using the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the early functional and oncological outcomes of single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (sp-pRARP) using the da Vinci XI system and analyze its learning curve using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

METHODS

The clinical data of 50 patients who underwent sp-pRARP for localized prostate cancer between May 2020 and May 2022 in our center by a single surgeon were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic information, preoperative and postoperative variables, complications, early functional and oncological outcomes of patients were recorded. The CUSUM method was used to illustrate the learning curve based on operation time.

RESULTS

All surgeries were completed without conversion. The median (interquartile range, IQR) operation time was 205.0 (82.5) min, whereas the median (IQR) docking time was 30.0 (15.0) min and the console time was 120.0 (80.5) min. The median (IQR) estimated blood loss (EBL) was 50.0 (137.5) mL. Positive surgical margins were detected in five patients (10.0%). The continence rate was 40.9%, 63.6%, 88.4%, and 97.7% at the 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. According to the CUSUM plot, the inflection points of the learning curve were 20 cases, splitting the case series into "early phase" and "late phase." In "late phase" cases, there was less time spent on each step of the operation and less EBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Sp-pRARP using the da Vinci XI system was verified to be a feasible and reliable surgical approach. According to the CUSUM plot, 20 cases was considered the turning point for surgeons to master the novel technique.

Postoperative complications and short-term prognosis of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been accepted worldwide for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), it is a very technical and challenging procedure. Also, it is unclear whether LPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study summarized the experience and efficacy of LPD for treating PDA in our medical center.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDA admitted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University from October 2019 and January 2021. Patients received either LPD or OPD. Clinical outcomes (operation time, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative hemorrhage), postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes were compared. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Among the PDA patients, 101 patients underwent surgical treatment, 4 patients converted from LPD to OPD, and 7 of them received conservative treatment. Forty-six patients were cured of LPD, and 1 of them died shortly after the operation. Moreover, 44 patients received OPD, and there were 2 postoperative deaths. There were significant differences in the location of the operation time, duration of anesthesia, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal infections, and postoperative pneumonia between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LPD was an independent factor negatively correlated with the incidence of pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 0.072, 95%CI: 0.016-0.326, p = 0.001) and abdominal infection (RR = 0.182, 95%CI: 0.047-0.709, p = 0.014). Also, there were no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.60-3.53, p = 0.40) and PFS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32, p = 0.37) at 12 months between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD could be efficacy and feasible for managing selected PDA patients. Also, LPD has a better effect in reducing postoperative pneumonia and abdominal infection compared to OPD.

Total laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: which one is better?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a challenging procedure. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is feasible and safe. Since the development of robotic platforms, the number of reports on robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has increased. We compared the technical feasibility and safety between LPD and robot-assisted LPD (RALPD).

METHODS

From September 2012 to August 2020, 257 patients who underwent MIPD for periampullary tumors were enrolled. Of these, 207 underwent LPD and 50 underwent RALPD. We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographics and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM analysis, no difference was noted in demographics. Operation times and estimated blood loss were similar, as was the incidence of complications (p > 0.05). In subgroup analysis in patients with soft pancreas with pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm, no significant between-group difference was noted regarding short-term surgical outcomes, including clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (p > 0.05). In multivariable analysis, the only soft pancreatic texture was a predictive factor (HR 3.887, 95% confidence interval 1.121-13.480, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

RALPD and LPD are safe and effective for MIPD and can compensate each other to achieve the goal of minimally invasive surgery.

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy reduces incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in soft pancreas with a smaller than 2 mm pancreatic duct

BACKGROUND

Soft pancreas with small pancreatic duct is a known risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and compared perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2019, 183 patients underwent LPD and 91 patients underwent OPD by a single surgeon. Data on patients with soft pancreas and combined small pancreatic duct (≤ 2 mm) were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were compared between LPD and OPD. We evaluated risk factors affecting clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF). We also correlated calculated risks of POPF and CR-POPF between the two groups.

RESULTS

We compared 62 patients in the LPD group and 34 patients in the OPD group. Perioperative outcomes showed less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain score on postoperative day (POD)#1 and #5 in LPD compared with OPD. Postoperative complications showed no differences between LPD and OPD. LPD group showed significantly reduced CR-POPF rates compared to the OPD group (LPD 11.3% vs. OPD 29.4%, p = 0.026). Multivariate analysis identified obesity (BMI ≥ 25), thick pancreas parenchyma and open surgery as independent predicting factors for CR-POPF. The LPD group showed less CR-POPF than the OPD group according to POPF risk groups. This difference was more prominent in a high-risk group.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate laparoscopic technique, LPD is feasible and safe and reduces CR-POPF in soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct.

Multicenter comparison of totally laparoscopic and totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Propensity score and learning curve-matching analyses

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) despite emerging use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). The present study therefore compares perioperative outcomes of LPD and RPD patients, and evaluates safety and feasibility of MIPD.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter analysis evaluated MIPD patients through June 2020 performed by three experienced pancreatic surgeons at three different institutions. Perioperative outcomes were compared before and after propensity score-matching analyses, and learning curves based on operation time were used for additional matching analysis.

RESULTS

Of 362 patients, 282 underwent LPD and 80 underwent RPD. Open conversion rate was significantly higher in LPD (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). After matching, operation time (P = .001) and hospital stay (P = .027) were significantly shorter in RPD, but there were no differences in major complications and CR-POPF. Propensity score-matched comparison after learning curve attainment showed shorter operation time (P = .037) and hospital stay (P = .014) in RPD, and no differences in major complications and CR-POPF.

CONCLUSION

RPD had several advantages compared with LPD, including shorter operative time and hospital stay, and lower open conversion rate. Postoperative complications including CR-POPF showed comparable results in two groups. Both LPD and RPD seemed to be feasible and safe approaches in experienced hands.

The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma showed similar survival: a case-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the oncological benefit of laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for ampullary carcinoma. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological results of these two approaches.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 103 patients who underwent PD for ampullary carcinoma, including 31 LPD and 72 OPD, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched on a 1:2 basis for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, and preoperative biliary drainage. Short- and long-term outcomes of LPD and OPD were compared.

RESULTS

The 31 LPD were matched (1:2) to 62 OPD. LPD was associated with a shorter operative time (298 vs. 341 min, p = 0.02) than OPD and similar blood loss (361 vs. 341 mL, p = 0.747), but with more intra- and post-operative transfusions (29 vs. 8%, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 vs. 2%), grades B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (22 vs. 21%), delayed gastric emptying (23 vs. 35%), bleeding (22 vs. 11%), Clavien ≥ III morbidity (22 vs. 19%), or the length of hospital stay (26 vs. 21 days) between LPD and OPD, respectively, but there were more reinterventions (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.009). Pathological characteristics were similar for tumor size (21 vs. 22 mm), well differentiated tumors (41 vs. 38%), the number of harvested (23 vs. 26) or invaded lymph nodes (48 vs. 52%), R0 resection (84 vs. 90%), and other subtypes (T1/2, T3/4, phenotype). With a comparable mean follow-up (41 vs. 37 months, p = 0.59), there was no difference in 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (p = 0.725) or recurrence-free survival (p = 0.155) which were (93, 74, 67% vs. 97, 79, 76%) and (85, 58, 58% vs. 90, 73, 73%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a similar long-term oncological results between LPD and OPD for ampullary carcinoma. However, the higher morbidity observed with LPD compared to OPD, restricting its use to experienced centers.

Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a less invasive alternative to the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) approach used to treat periampullary tumors. However, previous studies examining the advantages of this surgery over OPD have produced mixed results. Here, a retrospective observational approach was used to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with periampullary tumors who underwent LPD or OPD at a single institution in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from hospital medical records collected over five years from patients that underwent OPD or LPD. Information on demographics, medical status, tumor characteristics, operative variables, complications, and mortality was examined. Survival curves were constructed and the stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery.

Results

Eighty-four patients aged 26–80 years were included. Twenty-two patients underwent LPD and 62 received OPD. The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group, and the LPD group was less likely to require a blood transfusion during surgery. While the short- and long-term survival rates did not differ for the procedures, the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and an age >65 years.

Conclusion

Both LPD and OPD procedures for treating periampullary tumors exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival rates observed. Future studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to further examine the treatment outcomes following these surgical approaches.

•

The OPD group was significantly more likely to require blood transfusion as compared to the LPD group (p=0.04).

•

The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group (p < 0.01).

•

Factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and age group > 65 years.

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.

The outcome of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is improved with patient selection and the learning curve

BACKGROUND

In our first experience, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) was associated with higher morbidity than open PD. Since, the surgical technique has been improved and LPD was avoided in some patients at very high risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We provide our most recent results.

METHOD

Between 2011 and 2018, 130 LPD were performed and divided into 3 consecutive periods based on CUSUM analysis and compared: first period (n = 43), second period (n = 43), and third period (n = 44).

RESULTS

In the third period of this study, LPD was more frequently performed in women (46%, 39%, 59%, p = 0.21) on dilated Wirsung duct > 3 mm (40%, 44%, 57%; p = 0.54). Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) became the primary indication (12%, 39%, 34%; p = 0.037) compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35%, 16%, 16%; p = 0.004). Malignant ampulloma re-increased during the third period (30%, 9%, 20%; p = 0.052) with the amelioration of surgical technique. The operative time increased during the second period and decreased during the third period (330, 345, 270; p < 0.001) with less blood loss (300, 200, 125; p < 0.001). All complications decreased, including POPF grades B/C (44%, 28%, 20%; p = 0.017), bleeding (28%, 21%, 14%; p = 0.26), Clavien-Dindo III-IV (40%, 33%, 16%; p = 0.013), re-interventions (19%, 14%, 9%; p = 0.43), and the hospital stay (26, 19, 18; p = 0.045). Less patients with similar-sized adenocarcinoma were operated during the second period (70%, 33%, 59%; p = 0.002) with more harvested lymph nodes in the third period (21,19, 25; p = 0.031) and higher R0 resection (70%, 79%, 84%; p = 0.5). On multivariate analysis the protective factors against POPF of grades B/C were pancreatic adenocarcinoma and invasive IPMN, BMI < 22.5 kg/m², and patients operated in the third period.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the outcome of LPD significantly improves with the learning curve and patient selection. For safe implementation and during the early learning period, LPD should be indicated in patients at lower risk of POPF.

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.

Application of a surgical nursing cooperation program in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

To evaluate the value of programmed surgical nursing in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and summarize the experience.

Methods

The clinical data of 80 patients who received LPD in Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 40 patients were treated with traditional surgical nursing as the control group in the earlier stage. Afterwards, another 40 cases in the experimental group were treated using the surgical nursing program. Operation time, blood loss, and satisfaction of surgeons were analyzed.

Results

In all, 80 cases were successfully completed, and no significant difference was observed in the preoperative data statistics between these two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the average operation time and the average blood loss of the experimental group were significantly reduced (288.9±11.14 vs. 364.5±10.84 min, P<0.05; 135.3±20.12 vs. 364.8±77.39 mL, P<0.05), and the satisfaction of surgeons was significantly higher (95% vs. 80%, P<0.05).

Conclusions

Skilled execution of nursing cooperation is crucial in LPD. Through appropriate preoperative preparation, gaining mastery operation steps, remaining in sync with surgeons, and perfecting the management details, the surgical nursing cooperation program can improve the satisfaction of the surgeons and make operations more efficient.

Is Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Feasible for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma?

Margin-negative radical pancreatectomy is the essential condition to obtain long-term survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. With the investigation for early diagnosis, introduction of potent chemotherapeutic agents, application of neoadjuvnat chemotherapy, advancement of open and laparoscopic surgical techniques, mature perioperative management, and patients' improved general conditions, survival of the resected pancreatic cancer is expected to be further improved. According to the literatures, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is also thought to be good alternative strategy in managing well-selected resectable pancreatic cancer. LPD with combined vascular resection is also feasible, but only expert surgeons should handle these challenging cases. LPD for pancreatic cancer should be determined based on surgeons' proficiency to fulfil the goals of the patient's safety and oncologic principles.