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

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted.

CONCLUSION

RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Management and outcomes of hemorrhage after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter study at high volume centers

BACKGROUND

Data on clinically relevant post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (CR-PPH) are derived from series mostly focused on pancreatoduodenectomy, and data after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are scarce.

METHODS

All non-extended DP performed from 2014 to 2018 were included. CR-PPH encompassed grade B and C PPH. Risk factors, management, and outcomes of CR-PPH were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 1188 patients were included, of which 561 (47.2 %) were operated on minimally invasively. Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 574 patients (48.4 %). Ninety-day mortality, severe morbidity and CR-POPF rates were 1.1 % (n = 13), 17.4 % (n = 196) and 15.5 % (n = 115), respectively. After a median interval of 8 days (range, 0-37), 65 patients (5.5 %) developed CR-PPH, including 28 grade B and 37 grade C. Reintervention was required in 57 patients (87.7 %). CR-PPH was associated with a significant increase of 90-day mortality, morbidity and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Upon multivariable analysis, prolonged operative time and co-existing POPF were independently associated with CR-PPH (p < 0.005) while a chronic use of antithrombotic agent trended towards an increase of CR-PPH (p = 0.081). As compared to CR-POPF, the failure-to-rescue rate in patients who developed CR-PPH was significantly higher (13.8 % vs. 1.3 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CR-PPH after DP remains rare but significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality and failure-to-rescue.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

AIMS

To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation

OBJECTIVE

To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively.

BACKGROUND

POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet.

METHODS

Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Current Perioperative Care in Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Step-by-Step Surgical Roadmap from First Visit to Discharge

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a mainstay in the management of periampullary tumors. Treatment algorithms increasingly employ a multimodal strategy, which includes neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. However, the successful treatment of a patient is contingent on the execution of a complex operation, whereby minimizing postoperative complications and optimizing a fast and complete recovery are crucial to the overall success. In this setting, risk reduction and benchmarking the quality of care are essential frameworks through which modern perioperative PD care must be delivered. The postoperative course is primarily influenced by pancreatic fistulas, but other patient- and hospital-associated factors, such as frailty and the ability to rescue from complications, also affect the outcomes. A comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing surgical outcomes allows the clinician to risk stratify the patient, thereby facilitating a frank discussion of the morbidity and mortality of PD. Further, such an understanding allows the clinician to practice based on the most up-to-date evidence. This review intends to provide clinicians with a roadmap to the perioperative PD pathway. We review key considerations in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods.