Middle pancreatectomy

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference: -0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: -3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

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.

Overall Postoperative Morbidity and Pancreatic Fistula Are Relatively Higher after Central Pancreatectomy than Distal Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases from MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from 1998 to 2018. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed using statistics/data analysis (Stata®) software, version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas 77845, USA). Dichotomous variables were analyzed by estimation of relative risk (RR) with a 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables were analyzed by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies with 593 CP and 1226 DP were included in the meta-analysis. CP had significantly longer operation time (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.44; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.01). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in CP (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.09; P = 0.007). Overall postoperative morbidity (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.50; P < 0.001), overall pancreatic fistula (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.66; P < 0.001), clinically relevant fistula (RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.16; P < 0.001), and postoperative hemorrhage (RR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.06; P < 0.05) were all significantly higher after CP. On long-term follow-up, DP patients were more likely to have postoperative exocrine (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.84; P < 0.05) and endocrine (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40; P < 0.001) insufficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion requirement, postoperative mortality, reoperation, and tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

CP is associated with significantly higher morbidity and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. CP should only be reserved for selected patients who require postoperative pancreatic function preservation.

A rare case of central pancreatectomy for isolated complete pancreatic neck transection trauma

Background

Pancreatic trauma accounts for only 0.2% of blunt trauma and 1–12% of penetrating injuries. Injuries to other organs, such as spleen, liver, or kidney, are associated with 50.5% of the cases. The isolated complete traumatic transection of the pancreatic neck is rare. In the past, pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy was the standard care for patients with traumatic transection of the pancreatic head, duodenum or distal pancreas, and pancreatic neck. However, limited cases have been reported on the central pancreatectomy for pancreatic neck injuries. We present a rare case of a 21-year-old male patient who received central pancreatectomy for isolated complete traumatic transection of the pancreatic neck.

Case presentation

A 21-year-old male patient with mild abdominal pain and showed no apparent abnormality in the initial abdominal computed tomography (CT) was brought to the local hospital’s emergency department due to a traffic accident. The patient’s abdominal pain became progressively worse during observation in the hospital that led to the patient being referred to our hospital. The patient’s vital signs were stable, and a physical examination revealed marked tenderness and rebound pain throughout the abdomen. The patient’s white blood cells were increased; The serum amylase and lipase levels were elevated. The abdominal computed tomography revealed pancreatic neck parenchymal discontinuity, peripancreatic effusion, and hemorrhage. The patient underwent exploratory laparotomy. Intraoperative examination identified the neck of the pancreas was completely ruptured, and no apparent abnormalities were observed in the other organs. The patient underwent central pancreatectomy and Roux -Y pancreaticojejunostomy. The patient was treated with antibiotics, acid inhibition and nutritional supports for 10 days after surgery. Symptoms of the patient were significantly relieved, and white blood cells, serum amylase, and lipase levels returned to normal. The patient underwent follow up examination for 6 months with no evidence of exocrine or endocrine insufficiency.

Conclusions

Central pancreatectomy is an effective pancreas parenchyma preserving procedure, may be a promising alternative to distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy for this complex pancreatic trauma in hemodynamically stable patients. Patient selection and surgeon experience are crucial in the technical aspects of this procedure.

Patients get more long-term benefit from central pancreatectomy than distal resection: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Central pancreatectomy (CP) protects more normal pancreatic parenchyma than distal pancreatectomy (DP), but the safety, feasibility and long-term benefit of CP are inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to ascertain the relative merits of CP.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on CP and DP. Perioperative and long-term outcomes constituted the end points. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 735 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Although CP cost more operative time than DP, the two groups had no significant differences in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, rate of intraoperative blood transfusion and length of postoperative hospital stay. According to the postoperative outcomes, although the CP group had higher overall complication rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.05-1.62; P < 0.05) as well as overall pancreatic fistula rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.20-2.08; P < 0.05), the two groups did not differ significantly in the fateful surgical complications such as clinically significant pancreatic fistula (Grades B and C), postoperative bleeding, reoperation and intra-abdominal effusion/abscess. Furthermore, the perioperative mortality rate was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, the patients after DP were more likely to suffer pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86; P < 0.05) and endocrine impairment (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.11-0.33; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CP was still an acceptable and feasible procedure, especially when considering the postoperative pancreatic function preservation ability by CP.