Clinical outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2009;16:35-41. [PMID: 19083146 DOI: 10.1007/s00534-008-0007-0]

Possibility of incorrect evaluation of intraoperative blood loss during open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim

Decreasing intraoperative blood loss is one reported advantage of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. However, several reports indicate that blood loss during laparoscopic surgery may be underestimated. No studies have evaluated this possibility in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Here we evaluated estimated blood loss (e-BL) compared to intraoperative blood loss (i-BL) during distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

This study included 114 patients undergoing DP in our institution during the study period. We examined the relationship between i-BL and e-BL. Based on these results, we further investigated the relationship with LDP.

Results

The laparoscopic approach was used in a significantly higher percentage of patients in e-BL > i-BL group compared to e-BL < i-BL group (55.9% vs 10.9%, p < 0.0001). Within the LDP group (n = 39), e-BL was significantly more than i-BL (388 ± 248 vs 127 ± 160 mL; p < 0.0001). Within the open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) group (n = 75), e-BL was significantly less than i-BL (168 ± 324 vs 281 ± 209 mL; p = 0.0017). The e-BL > i-BL trend in the LDP group was consistent, regardless of the indication for DP. In contrast, the finding of i-BL > e-BL in the ODP group was limited to patients with pancreatic cancer.

Conclusion

During LDP, e-BL was significantly more than i-BL. During ODP, e-BL was significantly less than i-BL, only in patients with pancreatic cancer. These results suggested the possibility of i-BL underestimation during LDP, and overestimation during ODP in cases with pancreatic cancer.

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using the AEON™ endovascular stapler

Background

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of using a new innovative endovascular stapler, AEON™, on the pancreatic leak rates and other outcome measures.

Methods

In a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a secure tertiary unit registry, patients undergoing distal or lateral pancreatectomy were analyzed for any differences on pancreatic fistula rates, length of stay, comprehensive complication index (CCI), and demographics after using AEON™ compared with other commonly used staplers. Statistical significance was defined as <0.05.

Results

There were no differences in the demographics between the two groups totaling 58 patients over 2 years from 2019 to 2021. A total of 43 and 15 patients underwent pancreatic transection using other staplers and AEON™ endovascular stapler, respectively. The comparison of the two groups revealed a significantly reduced rate of mean drain lipase at postoperative day 3 with AEON™ (446 U/L) versus the other staplers (4,208 U/L) (p = 0.018) and a subsequent reduction of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) from 65% to 20%. A reduction in the mean CCI, from 13.80 when other staplers were used to 4.97 when AEON™ was used, was also observed (p = 0.087). Mean length of stay was shorter by 3 days in the AEON™ group compared with that in the other staplers (6 and 9 days, respectively; p = 0.018).

Conclusion

AEON™ stapler when used to transect the pancreas demonstrated a significantly reduced pancreatic fistula rate, length of stay in hospital, and a leaning towards a reduced CCI. Its use should be further evaluated in larger cohorts with the encouraging results to determine whether this is possibly related to the technology used in the design of the AEON™ stapler.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Distal pancreatectomy is well suited to the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides the same postoperative recovery advantages reputed to minimal access surgery. However, there have been fears as to the safety of LDP in terms of life-threatening intra-operative events and post-operative complications, adequate carcinological outcomes as compared to traditional (open) distal pancreatectomy (ODP) when performed for cancer, as well as to whether the laparoscopic approach is well adapted to the variety of diseases that may affect the pancreas (ranging from trauma to benign or malignant disease) and whether the minimal access approach is well adapted to perform pancreatic surgery safely in the obese, the elderly or the frail. In this review of the literature, we sought to determine whether LDP was as safe, provided the same oncological outcomes and was applicable to all diseases involving the body and tail of the pancreas, and to particular patient characteristics, compared to the traditional open approach. Last we looked at cost issues. We concluded that this review of the literature allowed to state that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe for a wide range of diseases, both benign and malignant. Morbidity, mortality, and probably, also, carcinological outcomes are comparable to open surgery. The overall costs are similar but the advantages of minimal access surgery make it the preferred approach, once the surgical expertise is acquired and present.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for PNETs: laparoscopic or robotic approach?

Background

The most effective and radical treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is surgical resection. Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. Initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) have been encouraging. Nonetheless, data comparing outcomes of RDP with those of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in treating PNETs are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RDP and LDP for PNETs.

Methods

From September 2010 to January 2017, operative parameters and perioperative outcomes in an initial experience with 43 consecutive patients undergoing RDP were collected and compared with those in 31 patients undergoing LDP.

Results

Patients undergoing RDP and LDP demonstrated equivalent age, sex, ASA score, tumor location and tumor size. Operating time, length of resected pancreas, postoperative length of hospital stay and rates of conversion to open, pancreatic fistula, transfusion and reoperation were not statistically different. Patients in the RDP group were associated with significantly higher overall (79.1 vs. 48.4 %, P = 0.006) and Kimura spleen preservation rates (72.1 vs. 16.1%, P < 0.001) and had reduced risk of excessive blood loss (50 vs. 200mL, P < 0.001). Oncological outcomes in this series were superior for the RDP group with more lymph node harvest for G2 and G3 PNETs (3.5 vs. 2, P = 0.034).

Conclusions

Both RDP and LDP are efficacious and safe methods in treating PNETs located in the body or tail of pancreas. Robotic approach offers advantages with less intraoperative blood loss, higher spleen preservation rate and more lymph node harvest. It may be sensible to choose RDP for patients who fit indications for scheduled spleen preservation.

International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) "Coimbatore Summit Statements"

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as "Coimbatore Summit Statements".

Improved perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy: modified lasso technique

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous division of the splenic artery, splenic vein and pancreatic parenchyma during laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) is known as the lasso technique, which is considered to be simple to perform. However, the original lasso technique carries a risk of post-operative bleeding from the splenic artery. We modified the original lasso technique to improve its technical safety and compared the perioperative outcomes of LDPS performed with the modified lasso technique (ml-LDPS) with those of conventional LDPS (c-LDPS).

METHODS

From August 2006 to July 2016, 30 patients underwent c-LDPS and 31 patients underwent ml-LDPS for distal pancreatectomy involving <50% of the pancreas. The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The ml-LDPS technique resulted in a shorter operation time (201 min versus 162 min, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (20 mL versus 200 mL, P < 0.01), a shorter post-operative hospital stay (8.0 days versus 12.5 days, P < 0.01), and a lower incidence of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistulas (6.5% versus 26.7%, P = 0.04) compared with c-LDPS. The surgical approach (c-LDPS or ml-LDPS) was identified as an independent predictor of the development of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistulas via multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The ml-LDPS method had beneficial effects on the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, the post-operative morbidity rate and the length of the post-operative hospital stay. The ml-LDPS procedure is a simple, safe and effective way of performing planned LDPS.

Case-matched study of lesser versus greater curvature approach in laparoscopic Warshaw pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LapDP), the pancreas is accessed in a greater curvature approach (GCA). The lesser curvature approach (LCA) has been proposed in underweight patients. The study investigated the feasibility of LCA irrespective of the body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients scheduled to undergo LapDP with the LCA. A matched cohort (1:1) underwent GCA. Spleen preservation was performed using the Warshaw technique. Splenic perfusion was intraoperatively assessed by indocyanine green (ICG) angiography.

RESULTS

The LCA with LapDP was successful in 12/15 patients. In 2 cases, LCA had to be converted to GCA and in 1 patient to open surgery. The cohorts were well matched in sex (P = 1.0), age (P = .67), indication (P = 1.0), and median BMI (23.4 kg/m² vs 24.8 kg/m², P = .41). Splenic preservation was achieved in 14/15 patients with LCA and 4/15 patients with GCA (P = .33). In all LCA cases, ICG angiography indicated sufficient spleen perfusion. The groups had similar morbidity (P = 1.0) and hospital stay (P = .74).

CONCLUSIONS

LCA was feasible in 80% irrespective of BMI and provided an excellent field of exposure. ICG angiography was feasible in the Warshaw technique. Its reliability should be evaluated in prospective studies.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Tumors: Does Size Matter?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for large pancreatic tumors may require prolonged dissection, and this could be associated with increased operative time and intraoperative complications.

METHODS

From a total cohort of 190 consecutive patients undergoing LDP, 18 patients were found to have pancreatic tumors >5 cm and were included in the retrospective study of prospectively collected data. Three techniques were used to approach the splenic vessels: the superior pancreatic, the inferior supracolic and post-pancreatic transection.

RESULTS

Of these 18 patients, 13 were women and 5 were men, the median age was 68 years and their median tumor size 7 cm. Exocrine pancreatic malignancy was diagnosed in 8 patients, 6 patients had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors and 4 patients cystic neoplasm. The median number of resected nodes was 14. R1 resections for exocrine pancreatic malignancies were found in 50% of patients. Morbidity (grade >II) was found in 16.6% of patients and 30 days mortality in 1 patient. Overall median survival was 50 months and 29 months for patients with exocrine pancreatic malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP for large tumors, while technically demanding, is possible without additional morbidity and did not compromise short- and long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection-a review

Contrary to many other gastrointestinal operations, minimal access approaches in pancreatic surgery have gained ground slowly. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has gained wide acceptance. It is associated with reduced blood loss and shorter duration of stay (DOS) while oncologic results and morbidity are similar to open surgery. In recent years the number of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies has also increased. While oncological outcome seems comparable to the open approach, operative times are longer while DOS and blood loss are reduced. One added advantage of the laparoscopic approach to pancreatic cancer seems to be that adjuvant treatment can start earlier. Minimal access total pancreatectomy, only reported in small numbers (mostly robot assisted), has also been shown to be feasible and safe. Enucleation (EN) of small pancreatic lesions is the most common tissue sparing resection. Although no reconstruction is necessary, the risk of pancreatic fistula is high, related to excision margins equal or smaller than 2 mm to the main pancreatic duct. Compared to the open approach, laparoscopic EN has shown comparable results in terms of morbidity, pancreatic function and fistula rate, with shorter operation times and faster recovery. Experience in robot assisted pancreatic surgery is increasing. However reports are still small in numbers, lacking randomization and mostly limited to dedicated centers. The learning curve for minimal access pancreatic surgery is steep. Low patient volume leads to longer DOS, higher costs and negatively impacts outcome.

Study on laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy procedures comparing splenic vessel preservation and non-preservation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether two types of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap-SPDP) techniques are being implemented safely. The study compares the clinical outcomes from laparoscopic Warshaw operation (Lap-W) with those from laparoscopic splenic vessels preserving SPDP (Lap-SPDP-VP) and considers the role of those operations.

METHODS

On August 2013, the Warshaw technique was introduced to our institution and 17 patients with a lesion in the distal pancreas who underwent Lap-SPDP by December 2015 were enrolled. Six patients who underwent a Lap-W and 11 patients who underwent a Lap-SPDP-VP were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the Lap-W and Lap-SPDP-VP patients, the sizes of the tumors were 46.5±31.2 and 25.7±14.9 mm [Probability (P) value =0.0913)]; the operative times were 287 min (range, 225-369 min) and 280 min (range, 200-496 min); the blood loss was 95 mL (range, 50-200 mL) and 60 mL (range, 0-650 mL); the length of the postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (range, 8-43 days) and 11 days (range, 7-28 days); median follow-up was 19 months (range, 13-28 months) and 23 months (range, 6-28 months), respectively. There was no case of symptomatic spleen infarction in either group. However, partial infarctions of the spleen without symptoms were observed by computed tomography in three out of six cases (50%) in the Lap-W. No patient required reoperation and the postoperative mortality was zero in both groups. All patients were alive and recurrence-free at the end of the follow-up period. Collateral veins around the spleen developed in 83.3% (five out of six patients) in the Lap-W and developed in 12.5% (one out of eight patients) in the Lap-SPDP-VP. A significant difference was observed between groups (P=0.0256). Gastric varices developed in 33.3% (two out of six patients) in the Lap-W. However, no case of rupture of varices, or other late phase complications was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Lap-W and Lap-SPDP-VP were found to be safe and effective, and in cases in which the detachment work of the splenic vessels from the tumor or the pancreatic parenchyma is difficult, performing Lap-W, rather than Lap-SPDP-VP, is considered appropriate. While Lap-SPDP is recommended for patients with benign or low grade malignant diseases, long-term follow-up to monitor hemodynamic changes in splenogastric circulation is considered needed.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Clinical outcomes for 14 consecutive patients with solid pseudopapillary neoplasms who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

INTRODUCTION

The postoperative results of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (SPN), including the effects of spleen-preserving resection, are still to be elucidated.

METHODS

Of the 139 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatectomy for non-cancerous tumors, 14 consecutive patients (average age, 29.6 years; 1 man, 13 women) with solitary SPN who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy between March 2004 and June 2015 were enrolled. The tumors had a mean diameter of 4.8 cm. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy was performed in eight patients (spleen-preserving group), including two cases involving pancreatic tail preservation, and laparoscopic spleno-distal pancreatectomy was performed in six patients (standard resection group).

RESULTS

The median operating time was 317 min, and the median blood loss was 50 mL. Postoperatively, grade B pancreatic fistulas appeared in two patients (14.3%) but resolved with conservative treatment. No patients had postoperative complications, other than pancreatic fistulas, or required reoperation. The median postoperative hospital stay was 11 days, and the postoperative mortality was zero.None of the patients had positive surgical margins or lymph nodes with metastasis. The median follow-up period did not significantly differ between the two groups (20 vs 39 months, P = 0.1368). All of the patients are alive and free from recurrent tumors without major late-phase complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy might be a suitable treatment for patients with SPN. A spleen-preserving operation is preferable for younger patients with SPN, and this study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the procedure compared to spleno-distal pancreatectomy.

Clinical outcomes of 15 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic insulinoma resection: The usefulness of monitoring intraoperative blood insulin during laparoscopic pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Insulinoma is a very serious functional tumor. Surgeons should confirm complete resection of insulinomas before completing the operation, even in laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and September 2014, 15 consecutive patients with biochemical evidence of an insulinoma underwent laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Intraoperatively, a peripheral arterial blood sample was taken, and insulin was measured by quick insulin assay. Insulin levels were determined before anesthesia induction, every 30 min thereafter, and every 30 min for at least 1 h after tumor resection to confirm insulin levels did not increase before surgery was completed.

RESULTS

All 15 patients (3 men and 12 women, average age 57.2 years) successfully underwent laparoscopic resection. One patient had two tumors, and the remaining 14 patients had one tumor each (three in the head, five in the body, and eight in the tail of the pancreas). Preoperative localization and regionalization studies identified the tumor correctly through CT (12/15 [80.0%]), MRI (9/12 [75.0%]), angiography (11/13 [84.6%]), endoscopic ultrasonography (7/10 [70.0%]), and selective arterial calcium injection (14/14 [100%]). Intraoperative ultrasonography detected 13 of 15 tumors (86.7%), and intraoperative blood insulin monitoring confirmed the complete resection of 16 of 16 tumors (100%). All patients were discharged with normal insulin levels and have been followed up for 3-88 months. There has been no recurrence of symptoms in any patients and none has died.

CONCLUSION

Complete removal of an insulinoma can be reliably predicted by intraoperative blood insulin monitoring even in laparoscopic pancreatectomies.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it's time to randomize

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Educating surgeons about advanced laparoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP) has been recognized worldwide as a feasible and highly beneficial procedure. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Lap-DP techniques are being implemented safely by surgeons training to perform this procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes of Lap-DP in patients operated on by the surgeon originating this procedure at our hospital (expert surgeon group [E group], n = 47) and patients operated on by surgeons training to perform this procedure (training surgeons group [T group], n = 53).

RESULTS

The median operating times for the E group and T group were 321 min (range, 150-653 min) and 314 min (range, 173-629 min), respectively; these times were not significantly different (P = 0.4769). The median blood loss in the T group (100 mL; range, 0-1950 mL) was significantly smaller than in the E group (280 mL; range, 0-1920 mL) (P = 0.0003). There were no significant intergroup differences in other operative results: combined operation ratio, spleen- and splenic vessels-preserving ratio, hand-assisted procedure ratio, and the ratio of transition to open. The frequency of pancreatic fistulas in the E group and T group was 12.8% and 16.9%, respectively; these rates were not significantly different (P = 0.5886). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other complications and reoperation rates. The median hospital stay for the E group was significantly shorter than for the T group (10 vs 13 days; P = 0.0307).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis shows that teaching safe Lap-DP techniques to surgeons is reflected in stable perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and short-term oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy

The authors found that robotic distal pancreatectomy, with or without splenic preservation, can be performed safely for patients with lesions of the distal pancreas.

Background:

A robotic-assisted minimal invasive approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic pancreatectomies. We analyzed the outcomes of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomies (RDPs) to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of robotic distal pancreas resection, including spleen preservation.

Methods:

We performed a descriptive retrospective analysis of 40 RDPs. Statistical comparisons were performed between two groups of patients undergoing robotic-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (SDP). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results:

Of 49 attempted RDPs, 40 were completed with robotic assistance, with a conversion rate of 18.4%. Compared with the published reports of laparoscopic distal pancreatotomy (DP) and robotic DP, the spleen preservation rate (30%), operating time (203 minutes), major complications rate (5%), fistula rate (20%), and length of hospital stay (5 days) were similar in our RDP patients. Also, the perioperative outcomes of the SPDP and SDP groups did not differ significantly. The median survival was 12.5 months for the patients undergoing RDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy, with or without splenic preservation, can be safely performed for lesions of the distal pancreas, with appropriate indications.

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for insulinoma: experience of a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is gaining acceptance for the treatment of insulinomas of the pancreatic body and tail. The aim of this report is to evaluate the feasibility, safety and outcomes of this procedure in a retrospective series.

METHODS

From May 2004 to November 2013, 9 patients underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for benign insulinomas in our department. Tumors were single and sporadic in eight patients, while the remaining patient had insulinomas in the setting of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Tumors were located by preoperative imaging in all cases. Laparoscopic ultrasound was always performed to guide the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

All the operations were carried out laparoscopically with a mean operative time of 110 min (range 90-210 min) and a mean blood loss of 50 ml (range 30-120 ml). One patient (11.1%) died on the 22nd post-operative day for massive intra-abdominal bleeding associated with pancreatitis of the stump. Two patients (22.2%) developed pancreatic fistula that healed conservatively. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.1 days (range 5-18 days). All alive patients were free from recurrence after a mean follow-up of 45 months (range 11-72 months).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible for the management of benign insulinomas. Definition of the tumor with preoperative imaging and laparoscopic ultrasound is essential to achieve high cure rate with minimal conversion.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to treat solid pseudopapillary tumors in children: transition from open to laparoscopic approaches in suitable cases

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in the treatment of solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPT) in children.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 22 patients under 18 years of age who underwent a distal pancreatectomy for SPT between January 1995 and December 2012.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients and eight patients underwent LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), respectively, and 71.4 % of the LDP and 25.0 % of the ODP procedures were spleen-sparing operations. The median duration of surgery in the LDP group was shorter than that in the ODP group [175 (range 120-540) vs. 257 (range 200-305) min, p = 0.024]. There were no differences in postoperative complications. The LDP patients commenced oral intake earlier than the ODP patients [2.0 (range 1.0-7.0) vs. 4.0 (range 3.0-12.0) days, p = 0.010], and had an earlier discharge from hospital [7.0 (range 5.0-20.0) vs. 13.0 (range 7.0-22.0) days, p = 0.009].

CONCLUSION

LDP treatment for SPT in children is associated with a shorter hospitalization and a shorter time to oral intake compared to ODP. LDP is a safe and feasible option for SPT in select pediatric patients.

200 consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder

INTRODUCTION

Because of the potential benefit of robotics in pancreatic surgery, we review our experience at two minimally invasive pancreatic surgery centers that utilize a robotically controlled laparoscope holder to see if smaller robots that enable the operating surgeon to maintain contact with the patient may have a role in the treatment of pancreatic disease.

METHODS

From March 1994 to June 2011, a total of 200 laparoscopic pancreatic procedures utilizing a robotically controlled laparoscope holder were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 72 duodenopancreatectomies, 67 distal pancreatectomies, 23 enucleations, 20 pancreatic cyst drainage procedures, 5 necrosectomies, 5 atypical pancreatic resections, 4 total pancreatectomies, and 4 central pancreatectomies were performed. Fourteen patients required conversion to an open approach and eight a hand-assisted one. A total of 24 patients suffered a major complication. Sixteen patients developed a pancreatic leak and 19 patients required reoperation. Major complications occurred in 14 patients and pancreatic leaks occurred in 13 patients. Ten patients required conversion to a lap-assisted or open approach and six patients required reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, a robotically assisted approach using a camera holder seems the only way to incorporate some of the benefits of robotics in pancreatic surgery while maintaining haptics and contact with the patient.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

This study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared with the open method using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated by meta-analysis using a fixed effect model and random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies of LDP and three studies of LPD matched the selection criteria, including 2,904 patients of DP and 109 patients of PD. Compared with ODP, LDP showed statistically significant differences with respect to less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, lower wound infection rates, lower morbidity rates, and shorter hospital stays. LPD showed significantly longer operative times compared with OPD. There was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between laparoscopic pancreatectomy and the open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis included the largest number of patients and number of articles comparing LDP and ODP, and LDP showed significantly better perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis suggests that LDP is a reasonable operative method for benign tumors and some ductal carcinomas in the pancreas.

Laparoscopic and robotic resection for pancreatic cancer

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic resection have been established as feasible and safe. Whereas widespread application of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is in progress, the utilization of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is still localized to a few centers because of the added complexity and advanced laparoscopic skills required. Comparative studies have demonstrated the typical advantages of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatic resection, namely, less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Robotic assistance for laparoscopic approaches is gaining interest, but the true value added is still undefined. Significant discussion revolves around the appropriateness of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic cancer. Although limited data and only short-term follow-up engender ongoing skepticism, the technical feasibility, existing reports in pancreatic cancer, and the lack of negative outcomes in other gastrointestinal cancers spark ongoing clinical evaluation. Minimally invasive surgical approaches have significant potential to improve the outcomes of pancreatic resection especially in pancreatic cancer patients in whom an optimal recovery is important for adjuvant treatment options. Larger experiences are forthcoming, and controlled trials are eagerly awaited; however, the feasibility of such is questionable because of the low incidence of resectable pancreatic cancer and the small number of centers performing minimally invasive pancreatectomy for malignancy.

Lesser curvature approach in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has entailed ventrally retracting the stomach to afford adequate visualization. The retracted stomach commonly droops over the pancreas and obstructs the surgical field, thus forcing the assistant surgeon to repeatedly lift the stomach out of the way ventrally and cranially. We herein reported LDP using the "lesser curvature approach" in which the pancreas was approached cephalad to the lesser curvature of the stomach in underweight patients with a coincidental low hanging stomach. An excellent view of both the distal pancreas and the spleen could be afforded, enabling complete mobilization of these organs from the retroperitoneum and easy ligation of the splenic vessels, without needing to retract the stomach ventrally and cranially. The lesser curvature approach in LDP could be performed safely and efficiently as an alternative to the conventional greater curvature approach in underweight patients with a low hanging stomach.

[Results of the laparoscopic approach in left-sided pancreatectomy]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) is an accepted technique for the treatment of benign and pre-malignant lesions of the left side of the pancreas, but there is still controversy on its use for malignant ones.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our results in LLP as a routine technique for primary lesions of the left pancreas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed LLP in 15 patients for primary lesions of the pancreas from November 2007 to November 2011. An intra-abdominal drainage was left in all cases, and the recommendations of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula were followed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64±13 years. Six radical spleno-pancreatectomies, 3 corporo-caudal with preservation of the spleen, and 6 pure distal (4 with preservation of the spleen). There was one conversion. The mean surgical time was 230±69 minutes. The mean post-operative stay was 8.1±7.6 days. At 90 days, complications were detected in 4 patients; 3 grade II and one grade V according to the modified classification of Clavien. There was one grade B pancreatic fistula. The diagnosis was a malignant neoplasm in 53% of cases. The number of resected lymph nodes in the cases where a radical resection was planned due to cancer was 21.7±11.5, there being negative margins in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LLP may be considered as a suitable technique for the treatment of primary pancreatic lesions, including malignant ones, provided that it is performed by groups with experience in pancreatic surgery and highly trained in laparoscopic surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVES

Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review compares outcomes of the laparoscopic technique with those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and assesses the efficacy, safety and feasibility of each type of procedure.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between January 1996 and April 2012 were included. Studies were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized comparative studies that recruited a total of 1456 patients were analysed. Rates of conversion from LDP to open surgery ranged from 0% to 30%. Patients undergoing LDP had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) -263.36.59 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -330.48 to -196.23 ml], fewer blood transfusions [odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.76], shorter hospital stay (WMD -4.98 days, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.92 days), a higher rate of splenic preservation (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.18-3.91), earlier oral intake (WMD -2.63 days, 95% CI -4.23 to 1.03 days) and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.75). However, there were no differences between the two approaches with regard to operation time, time to first flatus and the occurrence of pancreatic fistula and other postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection results in improved operative and postoperative outcomes compared with open surgery according to the results of the present meta-analyses. It may be a safe and feasible option for patients with lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm the relevance of these early findings.

Management of remnant pancreatic stump fto prevent the development of postoperative pancreatic fistulas after distal pancreatectomy: current evidence and our strategy

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is the most common surgical procedure for treating benign and malignant lesions in the body or tail of the pancreas. Although the mortality rate related to DP has recently been reduced, the postoperative morbidity remains high. The most frequent and dismal complication occurring after DP is the development of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF). Several resection methods and closure techniques for treating remnant pancreas have been developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of complications, especially POPF. However, the optimal procedure has not yet been established. In this review, we summarize the current clinical data and evidence for surgical techniques and perioperative management strategies for preventing POPF after DP. Finally, we introduce our non-closure technique for managing remnant pancreatic stumps.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) by using meta-analytical techniques.

BACKGROUND

LDP is increasingly performed as an alternative approach for distal pancreatectomy in selected patients. Multiple studies have tried to assess the safety and efficacy of LDP compared with ODP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing LDP and ODP. Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic safety, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies matched the selection criteria, including 1814 patients (43% laparoscopic, 57% open). LDP had lower blood loss by 355 mL (P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay by 4.0 days (P < 0.001). Overall complications were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (33.9% vs 44.2%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.95), as was surgical site infection (2.9% vs 8.1%; OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.82). There was no difference in operative time, margin positivity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP has lower blood loss and reduced length of hospital stay. There was a lower risk of overall postoperative complications and wound infection, without a substantial increase in the operative time. Although a thorough evaluation of oncological outcomes was not possible, the rate of margin positivity was comparable to the open technique. The improved complication profile of LDP, taken together with the lack of compromise of margin status, suggests that this technique is a reasonable approach in selected cancer patients.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed.

RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid intake, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I² = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I² = 55.6%].

CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for benign and malignant diseases appears to offer advantages and is replacing open surgery in some centers. This review examined the evidence from published data of comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open DP.

METHODS

The Medline and PubMed databases were searched and relevant English language publications were systematically retrieved. Data were pooled by two independent reviewers. The results shown represent mean.

RESULTS

Up to December 2010, 13 comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open DP were identified of which two were excluded, leaving 503 and 588 patients respectively for analysis. The conversion rate was 9.5%. The groups were comparable for age and sex, whilst open surgery was associated with significantly higher incidence of malignant pathology (20.1 vs. 15.0%) and larger tumors (3.9 vs. 3.5 cm) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences between the two approaches with regard to the operative time (220 vs. 208 min), rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (16.1 vs. 19.5%), and mortality (0.6 vs. 0.5%). However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly lower operative blood loss (237 vs. 562 ml), higher spleen preservation rate (37.8 vs. 8%), lower morbidity (30.5 vs. 38.4%), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9.1 vs. 14.7 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach to DP offers advantages over open surgery with lower operative morbidity, higher spleen preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay; these benefits are particularly observed in patients with benign disease and borderline malignancy. The experience with laparoscopic DP for malignant disease remains limited, and long-term follow-up data are required to clearly define this role.

Complication analysis of distal pancreatectomy based on early personal experience

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between initial personal experiences with distal pancreatectomy and perioperative risk factors, outcomes, and management of pancreatic fistulas.

METHODS

Between May, 2007 and May, 2010, a total of 28 patients who had undergone elective distal pancreatectomy were evaluated for this study. Perioperative factors and the occurrence of pancreatic fistula were analyzed on the basis of International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) criteria.

RESULTS

There were sixteen cases of benign neoplasms and twelve cases of malignant tumors. The remnant pancreas was manually sutured with ligation of the pancreatic duct (n=14), auto-suture stapling along with manual sutures (n=12), or stapling alone (n=2). According to the ISGPF classification, morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatic fistulas was 42.9% (n=12) and 0%, respectively. These pancreatic fistulae were classified as grade A in 8 cases (28.6%), grade B in 3 cases (10.7%), and grade C in one case (3.6%). All patients with pancreatic fistula were treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative factors do not affect the risk of pancreatic fistula. Adequate drainage is the most effective method for management of a pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy.

Perioperative outcomes for open distal pancreatectomy: current benchmarks for comparison

BACKGROUND

Open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) outcomes have largely relied on single-institution data from high-volume, tertiary centers. To provide contemporary, national benchmarks of ODP outcomes, we examined the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.

METHODS

Using the ACS-NSQIP database (2005-2007), we identified 868 cases of ODP. Operative time, intraoperative transfusion, and length-of-stay (LOS) data were compiled. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed adjusting for age, body mass index, diagnosis, creatinine, albumin, hematocrit, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification for likelihood of any postoperative complication and severe complication (composite endpoint: organ space surgical site infection, reoperation, or death).

RESULTS

Thirty-day overall complication, severe complication, and mortality rates were 27.2%, 11.6%, and 1%, respectively. Mean operative time was 206 min (±86), 18.1% patients required intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (median 2 units), and median LOS was 6 days. Predictors of any complication or severe complication were renal insufficiency, hypoalbuminemia, and worsening ASA classification. Malignant diagnosis was not associated with poorer outcomes.

DISCUSSION

ODP remains the gold standard for lesions of the pancreatic body or tail. The current analysis reflects nationwide data that may serve as current benchmarks for both open and laparoscopic techniques.

Single-center experience of laparoscopic left pancreatic resection in 359 consecutive patients: changing the surgical paradigm of left pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly performed for lesions of the body and tail of the pancreas. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of the largest series of patients to date who underwent LDP at a single center, as well as their outcomes, to reassess the surgical paradigm for left pancreatic resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 359 patients who underwent LDP at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, for pancreatic neoplasms between March 2005 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Of the 359 patients, 323 (90%) had benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms and 36 (10%) had malignancies. The most common diagnosis was intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) in 72 patients (21.2%). There were 24 patients (6.7%) with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We found that 178 patients (49.6%) underwent spleen-preserving LDP (SP-LDP): 150 (84.3%) by main splenic vessel preservation, and 28 (15.7%) supported by short gastric and gastroepiploic vessels (Warshaw technique). Postoperative complications occurred in 43 (12%) patients, including 25 (7%) with pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B, C), but there was no death. Median operative time was 195 (range, 78-480) min, and median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (range, 4-37) days. The proportion of patients with pancreatic lesions who underwent LDP increased from 8.6% in 2005 to 66.9% in 2010. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the 1- and 2-year overall survival rates in the 24 patients with PDAC were 85.2% each.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is feasible, safe, and effective for the treatment of benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas. The increased use of LDP for left-sided pancreatic lesions, including malignant lesions, represents a paradigm shift from open distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatic surgery has gained popularity in the last decade. However, well-designed studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are limited. We present a single-institution case-control study comparing outcomes of LDP to ODP.

METHODS

From a prospectively accruing database, 104 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic pathologies were eligible. Of these, 30 LDPs were matched with 30 ODPs using a 1:1 case-match design. Matching criteria were final histopathologic diagnosis and lesion size. Twelve LDPs were excluded from analysis because of lack of adequate ODP controls. In all cases, an attempt was made at conservation of the spleen.

RESULTS

There were more females in the LDP group (p = 0.001). Other clinicopathologic characteristics of the LDP and ODP groups such mean age (52.4 ± 17.2 vs. 59 ± 12.8, p = 0.104), prior history of upper abdominal surgery (6.7% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.254) or pancreatitis (13.3% vs. 10.0%, p = 1.000), histopathologic diagnosis (p = 1.000), lesion size on imaging (3.7 ± 2.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.4 cm, p = 0.170), and histopathology (3.8 ± 2.3 vs. 4.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.386) were comparable. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rates (50.0% vs. 43.3%, p = 0.604), major complication rates (20% vs. 20%, p = 0.829), grade B/C pancreatic fistula rates (16.7% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.717), or reoperation rates (3.3% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.000) between LDP and ODP groups, respectively. There was a significantly higher rate of splenic conservation in the LDP group (70% vs. 30%, p = 0.002). The intraoperative blood loss (294 ± 245 vs. 726 ± 709 ml, p < 0.001) and mean duration of hospitalization (8.7 ± 4.2 vs. 12.6 ± 8.7 days, p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the LDP group compared to the ODP group.

CONCLUSION

LDP is a safe and feasible option for distal pancreatic resections in experienced centers. The postoperative complication rate is comparable to that of ODP. LDP is associated with lower operative blood loss, higher rate of splenic conservation, and shorter duration of hospitalization. These encouraging results demand further validation in prospective randomized trials.

Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies

BACKGROUND

The current literature suggests that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with faster recovery and less morbidity than open surgery. However, most studies have been limited by a small sample size and a single-institution design. To overcome this problem, the first metaanalysis of studies comparing MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has been performed.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIDP and ODP. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For the metaanalysis, 10 studies including 349 patients undergoing MIDP and 380 patients undergoing ODP were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, and indication for surgery. The rate of conversion from full laparoscopy to hand-assisted procedure was 37%, and that from minimally invasive to open procedure was 11%. Patients undergoing MIDP had less blood loss, a shorter time to oral intake, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The mortality and reoperative rates did not differ between MIDP and ODP. The MIDP approach had fewer overall complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.89], major complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.96), surgical-site infections (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53), and pancreatic fistulas (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The MIDP procedure is feasible, safe, and associated with less blood loss and overall complications, shorter time to oral intake, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, the minimally invasive approach reduces the rate of pancreatic leaks and surgical-site infections after ODP.

Perioperative and long-term results after left pancreatectomy: a single-institution, non-randomized, comparative study between open and laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left pancreatic resections are being increasingly performed. In this study, we provide a nonrandomized comparison between laparoscopic and open left pancreatectomy (OLP) for benign and borderline tumors, focusing on both perioperative and long-term results.

METHODS

Demographic, pathologic, and perioperative details from patients who underwent laparoscopic and OLP between 1999 and 2006 were retrieved from our database and analyzed. Long-term results, including resume to full-time work, occurrence of incisional hernias, and incidence of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency also were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were included in the analysis; 43 (37.1%) were managed laparoscopically and 73 (62.9%) underwent the open procedure. There were no significant differences regarding clinical and pathological data. All of the resections attempted laparoscopically were completed. The rate of splenic preservation was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.0001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups. Longitudinal comparison between two time periods (1999-June 2004 vs. July 2004-2006) showed that pancreatic fistula and hospital stay significantly diminished over time in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.004, respectively). Median follow-up was 53 months. The incidence of exocrine insufficiency and incisional hernias was significantly higher after open resections (both P = 0.05). After hospital discharge, median time to resume full-time work was 6 weeks in the open group and 3 weeks after laparoscopic resections (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopy also resulted as an independent factor for an early resume to full-time activities in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy is a safe procedure for benign and borderline tumors, with similar perioperative outcomes compared with the open procedure. In the long term, the laparoscopic approach is likely to be superior thanks to a more rapid resume of full-time activities and to the lower incidence of incisional hernias and exocrine insufficiency. Clearly, these results have yet to be confirmed in large, randomized trials.

Article Commentary: Management of Left Pancreatic Trauma

Left pancreatic traumas (LPTs) are rare but serious lesions occurring in 1 to 6 per cent of abdominal trauma patients and mainly resulting from blunt traumas. LPT severity is primarily dependent on the associated injuries and secondarily related to main pancreatic duct injury responsible for complications: acute pancreatitis, pseudocysts, pancreatic fistulas, or abscesses. The guidelines for blunt LPT management can be presented as follows. In case of emergency laparotomy, pancreas exploration is mandatory to detect pancreatic duct lesions. In the absence of main pancreatic duct lesions, simple drainage is advocated. In case of distal injury to the main pancreatic duct, a left pancreatectomy is mandatory. In the absence of initial laparotomy, the diagnosis is more and more based on CT and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, which tend to replace endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as a first-intent diagnostic modality. In case of distal injury to the main pancreatic duct, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is recommended. In the absence of main pancreatic duct lesions, nonoperative treatment is advocated. When LPTs are discovered at the time of complications, pancreatic fistulas and/or pseudocysts are associated with main pancreatic lesions, which can be treated by pancreatic duct stenting at ERCP and/or internal endoscopic cystogastrostomy. However, in such cases, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy remains the treatment of choice. Pancreatic ductal lesions resulting from LPT have to be diagnosed early to avoid late complications. Distal pancreatectomy remains the treatment of choice in case of severe pancreatic ductal lesions because the role of ERCP stenting and endoscopic techniques needs further evaluation.

A solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas treated with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy: a case report and review of the literature

Introduction

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been described for more than a decade now and has been considered technically feasible, safe, and with reproducible outcomes. It seems to exhibit several benefits of minimally invasive surgery and should be performed in carefully selected patients.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 55-year-old Greek woman with a solid pseudopapillary tumor of the tail of the pancreas. She underwent a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. The histopathologic examination finally revealed a cystic-solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. Solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas are rare and affect predominantly young women. These tumors are of unclear pathogenesis and low malignancy, and surgical resection offers an excellent chance for long-term survival.

Conclusion

This case report indicates that in selected centers and for selected patients, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible. The benign characteristics of these tumors make them ideal for laparoscopic excision.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy offers shorter hospital stays with fewer complications

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly performed for lesions of the body and tail of the pancreas. The aim of this study was to investigate short-term outcomes after LDP compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) at a single, high-volume institution.

METHODS

We reviewed records of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and compared perioperative data between LDP and ODP. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients underwent DP. Beginning in 2001, 95 were attempted, and 71 were completed laparoscopically with a 25.3% conversion rate. Compared to ODP, LDP had similar rates of splenic preservation, pancreatic fistula, and mortality. LDP had lower blood loss (150 vs. 900 mL, p < 0.01), smaller tumor size (2.5 vs. 3.6 cm, p < 0.01), and shorter length of resected pancreas (7.7 vs. 10.0 cm, p < 0.01). LDP had fewer complications (28.2% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.02) as well as shorter hospital stays (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP can be performed safely and effectively in patients with benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms of the distal pancreas. When feasible in selected patients, LDP offers fewer complications and shorter hospital stays.

Comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to be an effective surgical option for benign lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, its advantages and disadvantages have not been well characterized. In this study, we compared the outcomes of LDP and open pancreatectomy performed in our clinic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Peri- and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared between patients with benign pancreatic disorders who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (n = 35) and those who underwent LDP (n = 40). The peri- and postoperative factors analyzed included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, biochemical findings, and complications.

RESULTS

LDP was associated with significantly less operative blood loss (363 versus 606 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (22 versus 27 day; P = 0.009), but longer operative time (342 versus 250 min; P = 0.000), compared with ODP. There were no significant differences between the two groups in complication rates or postoperative recovery, except for the significantly shorter duration of postoperative pain-killer intake and earlier improvement of the biochemical analysis in LDP than in ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP appears to be a safe, desirable procedure for the management of benign pancreatic diseases, with outcomes similar to ODP.