Laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

A Novel Technique for Pancreatic Stump Closure: Clip Ligation of the Duct and Associated Suturing of Pancreas

Pancreatic fistula (PF) remains the primary source of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP). There is currently no optimal stump closure technique to reduce PF rates. We present a novel technique for pancreatic stump closure using Clip Ligation of the duct and Associated Suturing of Pancreas (CLASP). Five patients (three females) with a median age of 65 years underwent DP and splenectomy for pancreatic body or tail tumour using the CLASP technique. Four of those operations were done laparoscopically. Only one patient developed grade A PF. No other postoperative complications were noticed. The mean length of stay was 5.4 days. The CLASP technique was applicable in both laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. The key points include mobilisation of the pancreatic body from the retroperitoneum and division of the parenchyma with energy device. The technique of pancreatic stump closure involves the isolation of the pancreatic duct (PD), application of a double ligaclip on the proximal duct, division of the PD and finally suturing of the pancreatic stump. The CLASP technique is an effective and safe alternative technique to the current traditional methods of pancreatic stump closure.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs.

DISCUSSION

The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

No-touch isolation techniques for pancreatic cancer

The rate of recurrence, including liver metastasis is high in pancreatic cancer, even when complete surgical resection is performed as a curative treatment. In patients with pancreatic cancer, the handling and grasping of the pancreas during surgery may increase the risk of liver metastasis, as squeezing may spread cancer cells via the portal vein. A no-touch isolation technique might prevent the spread of cancer cells via the hematogenous metastatic route in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, while no-touch isolation techniques are simple, feasible and, in theory, ideal procedures for the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized controlled prospective studies to validate their advantages and their efficacy remains controversial. It is, therefore, worth investigating the use of no-touch isolation techniques in pancreatic cancer.

Validity of the management strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm advocated by the international consensus guidelines 2012: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the management strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) advocated by the international consensus guidelines 2012 (ICG2012).

METHODS

The medical records of 49 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for IPMN were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

According to preoperative imaging, 10 patients (20 %) had main-duct IPMNs, 20 (41 %) had mixed IPMNs, and 19 (39 %) had branch-duct IPMNs, with malignancy frequencies of 80, 15, and 37 %, respectively. Twenty-seven patients had high-risk stigmata and 21 had worrisome features, with malignancy frequencies of 59 and 10 %, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of high-risk stigmata for malignancy were 88, 65, 59, and 91 %, respectively. Lesions were malignant in 88 % of patients with an enhanced solid component, which was significantly correlated with the prevalence of malignancy (P < 0.01). However, of the 10 patients who underwent pancreatectomy solely due to a main pancreatic dilation of ≥10 mm, 9 (90 %) had benign IPMNs.

CONCLUSIONS

Many mixed IPMNs defined according to ICG2012 are benign. Although the management strategy advocated by ICG2012 has been improved relative to the Sendai criteria, the different high-risk stigmata carry unequal weights. Consequently, ICG2012 remains suboptimal for predicting malignant IPMN.

Intraoperative blood loss is not a predictor of prognosis for pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The relationship between intraoperative blood loss (IBL) and prognosis has been reported for some types of cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer, which has one of the highest mortality rates of any cancer. We conducted this study to analyze the relationship between IBL and clinical outcome for patients undergoing radical surgery for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were 144 patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for invasive pancreatic cancer between 2002 and 2014. Clinicopathological characteristics were recorded and prognostic factors were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Large IBL was significantly associated with advanced tumor stage, a long operation time, a large tumor, portal vein resection, and blood transfusion. According to univariate analysis, IBL was also significantly associated with overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS); however, it was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and RFS in multivariate analysis. According to multivariate analysis, lymph node metastasis and R-status were independent prognostic factors for OS and RFS. A subgroup analysis of patients who received no blood transfusion showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

Minimizing IBL is very important; however, the present study found that positive lymph node metastasis and R-status were stronger independent prognostic factors for pancreatic cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival.

RESULTS

Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.