Systematic review of minimally invasive pancreatic resection

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

The use of endoscopic ultrasound in the management of post-surgical and pancreatic fluid collections

Fluid collections after abdominal surgeries, particularly pancreatic surgeries, are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Up until recently, percutaneous drainage was the first line therapy, but not without disadvantages, including high maintenance, risk of infection and chronic fistulas, electrolyte losses, and impact on quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of post-surgical fluid collections (PSFCs) is safe and effective, carrying similar success, adverse event (AE), and recurrence rates as percutaneous drainage. Despite limited data on EUS-guided drainage of PSFCs, especially with regards to direct comparisons to percutaneous drainage, EUS management of these collections is becoming the first-line approach in many expert institutions.

Organ preserving pancreatic resections offer better long-term conservation of pancreatic function at the expense of high perioperative major morbidity: a fair trade-off for benign or low malignant potential pancreatic neoplasms-a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Standard pancreatic resections (SPRs) might have long-term deleterious effects on pancreatic function, without added oncological advantage in low malignant potential (LMP) or benign neoplasms. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes following organ-preserving pancreatic resections (OPPARs) and SPRs.

METHOD

Post hoc analysis of patients undergoing OPPAR or SPR for benign or LMP pancreatic tumors from January 2011 to January 2020 at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

RESULTS

Thirty-six and 114 patients were identified in OPPAR and SPR groups respectively. The overall morbidity (58.3% vs 43.9%, p-0.129) was comparable. Major morbidity (41.7% vs 21.9%, p-0.020), post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (63.9% vs 35.1%, p-0.002), and clinically relevant POPF (41.7% vs 20.2%, p-0.010) were significantly higher with OPPAR. Post-operative endocrine insufficiency (14.9% vs 11.1%, p-0.567), exocrine insufficiency (19.3% vs 0%, p-0.004), and requirement of long-term pancreatic enzyme replacement (17.5% vs 0%, p-0.007) were higher in SPRs. Comparing left-sided and right-sided resections in the entire cohort, incidence of endocrine insufficiency was 17.1% vs 11.2% (p-0.299) and that of exocrine insufficiency was 8.6% vs 20% (p-0.048) respectively.

CONCLUSION

OPPAR is associated with high post-operative major morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate but offers long-term benefit due to better preservation of pancreatic function than SPR. The incidence of exocrine insufficiency is higher in right sided as compared to left-sided pancreatic resections.

Impact of parenchyma-preserving surgical methods on treating patients with solid pseudopapillary neoplasms: A retrospective study with a large sample size

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) of the pancreas is a rare neoplasm that mainly affects young women.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of parenchyma-preserving surgical methods (PPMs, including enucleation and central pancreatectomy) in the treatment of SPN patients.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2019, patients who underwent pancreatectomy for SPNs were retrospectively reviewed. The baseline characteristics, intraoperative index, pathological outcomes, short-term complications and long-term follow-up data were compared between the PPM group and the conventional method (CM) group.

RESULTS

In total, 166 patients were included in this study. Of them, 33 patients (19.9%) underwent PPM. Most of the tumors (104/166, 62.7%) were found accidentally. Comparing the parameters between groups, the hospital stay d (12.35 vs 13.5 d, P = 0.49), total expense (44213 vs 54084 yuan, P = 0.21), operation duration (135 vs 120 min, P = 0.71), and intraoperative bleeding volume (200 vs 100 mL, P = 0.49) did not differ between groups. Regarding pathological outcomes, tumor size (45 vs 32 mm, P = 0.07), Ki67 index (P = 0.53), peripheral tissue invasion (11.3% vs 9.1%, P = 0.43) and positive margin status (7.5% vs 6%, P = 0.28) also did not differ between groups. Moreover, PPM did not increase the risk of severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (3.8% vs 3.0%, P = 0.85) or tumor recurrence (3.0% vs 6.0%, P = 0.39). However, the number of patients who had exocrine insufficiency during follow-up was significantly lower in the PPM group (21.8% vs 3%, P = 0.024). CM was identified as an independent risk factor for pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (odds ratio = 8.195, 95% confident interval: 1.067-62.93).

CONCLUSION

PPM for SPN appears to be feasible and safe for preserving the exocrine function of the pancreas.

Short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open spleen-saving distal pancreatectomies

Introduction:

This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SPDP) versus open surgery SPDP (O-SPDP). It also aimed to determine the long-term vascular patency after spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomies (SSVDPs).

Methods:

A retrospective review of 74 patients who underwent successful SPDP and met the study criteria was performed. Of these, 67 (90.5%) patients underwent SSVDP, of which 38 patients (21 open, 17 MIS) had adequate long-term post-operative follow-up imaging to determine vascular patency.

Results:

Fifty-one patients underwent open SPDP, whereas 23 patients underwent minimally invasive SPDP, out of which 10 (43.5%) were laparoscopic and 13 (56.5%) were robotic. Patients who underwent MI-SPDP had significantly longer operative time (307.5 vs. 162.5 min, P = 0.001) but shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.021) and lower median blood loss (100 vs. 200 cc, P = 0.046) compared to that of O-SPDP. Minimally-invasive spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SSVDP) was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP (P = 0.048). This was particularly with respect to partial occlusion of the splenic vein, and there was no significant difference between the complete splenic vein occlusion rates between the MIS group and open group (29.4% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.954). The operative time was statistically significantly longer in patients who underwent robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (330 vs. 173 min, P = 0.008).

Conclusion:

Adoption of MI-spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is safe and feasible. MI-SPDP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss but longer operation time compared to O-SPDP. In the present study, MI-SSVDP was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP.

EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (EUS-FNT) for preoperative localization of small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs): a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

and study aims Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) can be difficult to detect intra-operatively. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tattooing (EUS-FNT) to facilitate intra-operative detection of pNETs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixteen patients with pNETs (8 insulinoma and 8 non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) underwent EUS-FNT. The procedure was carried out using the conventional curvilinear EUS. Tattooing was performed by intralesional injection of 1-2 mL of Spot® ink (Spot®, GI Supply, Comp Hill, PA, US) using a standard 22 gauge EUS-FNA needle.

RESULTS

All identified pNETs could be tattooed in one session. The procedure was well tolerated in all patients without any complication. The time interval between tattooing and surgery was between 1 and 565 days (mean of 52 days). Nine patients underwent open and seven laparoscopic surgery. The tattooed lesions could be recognized in all but one patient. In one patient, a small hematoma secondary to the EUS-FNT was observed. Pathological examination of the resection specimen showed local R0 resection in all cases, and no interference with the specimen evaluation was encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that EUS-guided FNT is a safe and useful method to mark preoperatively small (≤ 2 cm) pNETs.

How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, "What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I," the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

Fluid collection after partial pancreatectomy: EUS drainage and long-term follow-up

Background and Objectives:

Postoperative fluid collection due to pancreatic leak is the most frequent complication after pancreatic surgery. EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection is the gold standard procedure; however, data on outcomes of this procedure are limited. The primary endpoint of our study was relapse over longterm followup, and the secondary endpoint was the efficiency and safety of EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection.

Patients and Methods:

This retrospective study was conducted at a single center from December 2008 to April 2016. Global morbidity was defined as the occurrence of an event involving additional endoscopic procedures, hospitalization, or interventional radiologic or surgical procedures. EUS-guided drainage was considered a clinical failure if surgery was required to treat a relapse after stent removal.

Results:

Fortyone patients were included. The technical success rate was 100%. Drainage was considered a clinical success in 93% (39/41) of cases. Additionally, 19 (46%) complications were identified as global morbidity. The duration between surgery and EUS-guided drainage was not a significantly related factor for morbidity rate (P = 0.8); however, bleeding due to arterial injuries (splenic artery and gastroduodenal artery) from salvage drainage procedures occurred within 25 days following the initial surgery. There was no difference in survival between patients with and without complications. No relapse was reported during the followup (median: 44.75 months; range: 29.24 to 65.74 months).

Conclusion:

EUSguided drainage for post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection was efficient with no relapse during longterm followup. Morbidity rate was independent of the duration between the initial surgery and EUS-guided drainage; however, bleeding risk was likely more important in cases of early drainage.

Ultrasound-Guided Robotic Enucleation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are relatively rare neoplasms with a low to mild malignant potential. They can be further divided into functioning and nonfunctioning, according to their secretive activity. Surgery is an optimal approach, but the classic open approach is challenging, with some patients having long hospitalization and potentially life-threatening complications. The robotic approach for PanNETs may represent an option to optimize their management.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained databases from 2 high-volume Italian centers for pancreatic surgery. Demographics, pathological characteristics, perioperative outcome, and medium-term follow-up of patients who underwent robotic pancreatic enucleations were collected.

RESULTS

Twelve patients with final diagnosis of PanNET were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years (25-77). The median body mass index was 26 (24-29). Three lesions were functioning insulinomas, while the others were nonfunctioning tumors. No deaths occurred. Mild postoperative complications occurred, except for 1 grade B pancreatic fistula. The mean postoperative stay was 3.9 days (2-5).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that robotic enucleation is a feasible and safe approach for the treatment of PanNETs, with short hospital stay and low incidence of morbidity.

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.

Enucleation of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: Short-term and long-term outcomes from a 7-year large single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Enucleation is increasingly used for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) to preserve function of the pancreas. The data was limited due to rarity of this low-grade neoplasm. We sought to describe the indications, operative technique, short and long-term outcomes after enucleation with largest series of enucleated SPNs.

METHODS

Data collected retrospectively from 110 patients with SPN who underwent pancreatectomy between 2009 and 2016 in our institution were reviewed. Thirty-one patients underwent enucleation were identified for analysis, and compared with the 70 patients underwent conventional pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

Of the 31 patients, 27 (87.1%) were women, and the mean age was 29.8 years (range, 11-49 years). Enucleated SPNs were mostly located in the head/uncinate process of the pancreas (38.7%). Overall morbidity was 25.8%, mainly due to POPF (19.4%), and severe morbidity was only 6.5% with no death. Compared with conventional pancreatic resection, enucleation had a shorter duration of surgery (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P < 0.001), lower rate of exocrine insufficiency (P = 0.033) and comparable morbidity (P = 1), with no increased risk of tumor recurrence (P = 1). The rate of endocrine insufficiency after enucleation seemed lower (Nil vs. 4.5%, P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

Enucleation of SPN of the pancreas appears to be feasible and safe for preserving exocrine and endocrine function of the gland. Enucleation with negative surgical margin seems adequate with no increased risk of tumor recurrence. Enucleation could be seriously considered as an alternative to conventional resection for this frequently young population.

Robotic-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a technical review

Minimally-invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is indicated for benign or borderline malignant lesions confined to the pancreatic body and tail. With the introduction of the da Vinci robotic system, preliminary case series have suggested an improved spleen preservation rate, higher rate of margin negative resections and improved lymph node yield versus the standard laparoscopic approach. In this article, we described our approach to robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy with both vessel-conserving (Kimura) and vessel-sacrificing (Warshaw) variations.

The Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach to Resection of Pancreatic Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms: An Underused Technique?

Pancreatic mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) are rare tumors typically of the distal pancreas that harbor malignant potential. Although resection is recommended, data are limited on optimal operative approaches to distal pancreatectomy for MCN. MCN resections (2000–2014; eight institutions) were included. Outcomes of minimally invasive and open MCN resections were compared. A total of 289 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for MCN: 136(47%) minimally invasive and 153(53%) open. Minimally invasive procedures were associated with smaller MCN size (3.9 vs 6.8 cm; P = 0.001), lower operative blood loss (192 vs 392 mL; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay(5 vs 7 days; P = 0.001) compared with open. Despite higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, hand-assisted (n = 46) had similar advantages as laparoscopic/robotic (n = 76). When comparing hand-assisted to open, although MCN size was slightly smaller (4.1 vs 6.8 cm; P = 0.001), specimen length, operative time, and nodal yield were identical. Similar to laparoscopic/robotic, hand-assisted had lower operative blood loss (161 vs 392 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 7 days; P = 0.03) compared with open, without increased complications. Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is a useful approach for MCN resection because specimen length, lymph node yield, operative time, and complication profiles are similar to open procedures, but it still offers the advantages of a minimally invasive approach. Hand-assisted laparoscopy should be considered as an alternative to open technique or as a successive step before converting from total laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy for MCN.

Short-term outcomes and risk factors for pancreatic fistula after pancreatic enucleation: A single-center experience of 142 patients

BACKGROUND

Enucleation is increasingly used for benign or low-grade pancreatic neoplasms. Enucleation preserves the pancreatic parenchyma as well as decreases the risk of long-term endocrine and exocrine dysfunction, but may be associated with a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this study was to assess short-term outcomes, in particular, POPF.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively from all 142 patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation between 2009 and 2014 in our institution were analyzed.

RESULTS

Lesions were most frequently located in the head and uncinate process of the pancreas (60.6%), and the most common types were neuroendocrine neoplasms (52.1%). Overall morbidity was 66%, mainly due to POPF (53.5%), and severe morbidity was only 8.4%, including one death (0.7%). Clinical POPF (Grade B or C) occurred in 22 patients (15.5%). Independent risk factors for clinical POPF were age ≥60 years, an episode of acute pancreatitis, and cystic morphology. Tumor size, coverage, histological differentiation, and prolonged operative time were not associated with the risk of POPF.

CONCLUSIONS

Enucleation is a safe and feasible procedure for benign or low-grade pancreatic neoplasms. The rate of clinical POPF is acceptable, and clinical POPF occurs more frequently in elderly patients (≥60 years of age), patients with cystic neoplasms, or patients with an episode of acute pancreatitis.

Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of MIPD versus OPD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Postoperative complications, intraoperative outcomes and oncologic data, and postoperative recovery were compared.

RESULTS

There were 27 studies that matched the selection criteria. Totally 1306 cases of MIPD and 5603 cases of OPD were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in postoperative hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.49; P = .04) and wound infection (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, P < .0001). MIPD was also associated with less estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD] -300.14 mL, 95% CI -400.11 to -200.17 mL, P < .00001), a lower transfusion rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 d, 95% CI -3.91 to -2.00 d, P < .00001) than OPD. Meanwhile, the MIPD group had a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18-1.78, P = .0003) and more lymph nodes harvested (MD 1.34, 95% CI 0.14-2.53, P = .03). However, the minimally invasive approach proved to have much longer operative time (MD 71.00 minutes; 95% CI 27.01-115.00 minutes; P = .002) than OPD. Finally, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .30), delayed gastric emptying (P = .07), bile leakage (P = .98), mortality (P = .88), tumor size (P = .15), vascular resection (P = .68), or reoperation rate (P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible, and worthwhile. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) with extensive follow-up are awaited to further clarify this role.

Duodenum and ventral pancreas preserving subtotal pancreatectomy for low-grade malignant neoplasms of the pancreas: An alternative procedure to total pancreatectomy for low-grade pancreatic neoplasms

AIM

To describe the indications, technique and outcomes of the novel surgical procedure of duodenum and ventral pancreas preserving subtotal pancreatectomy (DVPPSP).

METHODS

Data collected retrospectively from 43 patients who underwent DVPPSP and TP between 2009 and 2015 in our single centre were analysed. For enrolment, only patients with low-grade pancreatic neoplasms, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), and solid pseudo-papillary tumors, were included. Ten DVPPSP (group 1) and 13 TP (group 2) patients were selected in this study.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, gender, comorbidities, preoperative symptoms, American Society of Anesthesiologists score or indications for surgery between the two groups. The most common indication was IPMN for DVPPSP and TP (60% vs 85%, P = 0.411). Compared with the TP group, the DVPPSP group had comparable postoperative morbidities (P = 0.405) and mortalities (both nil), but significantly shorter operative time (232 ± 19.6 min vs 335 ± 32.3 min, P < 0.001). DVPPSP preserved better long-term pancreatic function with less supplementary therapy (P < 0.001) and better quality of life (QoL) after surgery, including better scores in social (P = 0.042) and global health (P = 0.047) on functional scales and less appetite loss (P = 0.049) on the symptom scale.

CONCLUSION

DVPPSP is a feasible and safe procedure that could be an alternative to TP for low-grade neoplasms arising from the body and tail region but across the neck region of the pancreas; DVPPSP had better metabolic function and QoL after surgery.

[Branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm - surgical approach]

Due to increasing precision of modern imaging modalities, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas are found with increasing prevalence. Despite their malignant potential IPMN are often kept under surveillance and are not immediately resected. The 2012 International Consensus Guidelines of Fukuoka have been widely accepted for the management of IPMN. They recommend surgical resection for branch duct IPMN with "high risk stigmata", while branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features" should undergo observation without immediate resection. Consequently, patients with asymptomatic branch duct IPMN and a presumed low malignant potential mostly undergo primary surveillance to avoid surgery-related morbidity and mortality following pancreatic resection; however, with respect to the cumulative risk of malignant transformation over time, surgical resection might also be indicated for patients with branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features". This article discusses the indications for surgery and different options of resection of branch duct IPMN.

Pancreatic resection in the era of laparoscopy: State of Art. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding interventions is the pancreatic surgery that is seen as intraoperatively risky and with high postoperative morbi-mortality rate. In order to understand the complexity of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, we performed a systematic review of literature.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of literature was performed regarding laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach in pancreas resections has been extensively reported as safe and feasible regarding pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic enucleation. Compared to open approach, no benefit in morbi-mortality has been demonstrated (except for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy) and no controlled randomized trials have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is not workable in all patients and patient selection is not standardized. Additionally, most optimistic reports considering laparoscopic approach are produced by tertiary centres. Currently, two tasks should be accomplished 1°) standardization of the laparoscopic pancreatic procedures 2°) comparative trials to assess endpoint benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection compared with open procedures.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare complications and oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) at a single center.

METHODS

Distal pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during a 4-year period were included in this study. A retrospective analysis of a database of this cohort was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients underwent LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, in comparison to seventy-six patients with comparable tumor characteristics treated by ODP. No patients with locally advanced lesions were included in this study. Comparing LDP group to ODP group, there were no significant differences in operation time (P=0.06) or blood loss (P=0.24). Complications (pancreatic fistula, P=0.62; intra-abdominal abscess, P=0.44; postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, P=0.34) were similar. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested (11.2±4.6 in LDP group vs. 14.4±5.5 in ODP group, P=0.44) nor the rate of patients with positive lymph nodes (36% in LDP group vs. 41% in ODP group, P=0.71). Incidence of positive margins was similar (9% in LDP group vs. 13% in ODP group, P=0.61). The mean overall survival time was (29.6±3.7) months for the LDP group and (27.6±2.1) months for ODP group. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (P=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A slow-compression of pancreas tissue with the GIA stapler is effective in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula. The oncologic outcome is comparable with the conventional open approach. Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy contributed to oncological clearance.

Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.

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.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients: is it safe?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appears to be safe and effective as open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or borderline malignant lesion. However, studies comparing LDP with ODP in elderly patients are limited. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of these two several approaches in elderly patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out by comparing laparoscopic (n = 7) and open (n = 15) distal pancreatectomy in elderly patients performed at the University of Naples "Federico II" and University of Perugia between January 2012 and December 2015. Demographic data, operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Demographic and tumor characteristics of laparoscopic and ODP were similar. There were also no significant differences in operating room time. Patients undergoing LDP had lower blood loss, first flatus time, diet start time and postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in complication rates or 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

LDP is safe and feasible as ODP in selected elderly patients.

Initial experience with laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer in a single institution: technical aspects and oncological outcomes

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has been performed less frequently in the era of pancreatic cancer due to technical difficulties and concerns about oncological safety. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is expected to be helpful to obtain a negative margin during radical lymph node dissection. We hypothesized that it would also be favorable as a laparoscopic application due to unique features.

Methods

Fifteen laparoscopic RAMPS for well-selected patients with left-sided pancreatic cancer were performed from July 2011 to April 2016. Five trocars were usually used, and the operative procedures and range of dissection were similar to or the same as those of open RAMPS described by Strasberg. All medical records and follow-up data were reviewed and analyzed.

Results

All patients had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mean operative time was 219.3 ± 53.8 min, and estimated blood loss was 250 ± 70 ml. The length of postoperative hospital stay was 6.1 ± 1.2 days, and postoperative morbidities developed in two patients (13.3%) with urinary retention. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 18.1 ± 6.2 and all had negative margins. Median follow-up time was 46.0 months, and the 3-year disease free survival and overall survival rates were 56.3% and 74.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our early experience with laparoscopic RAMPS achieved feasible perioperative results accompanied by acceptable survival outcomes. Laparoscopic RAMPS could be a safe and oncologically feasible procedure in well-selected patients with left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Impact of minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy on use of adjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Published data examining the impact of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) on survival are generally limited to experiences from high-volume institutions. Our aim was to compare utilization of adjuvant chemoradiation and time from surgery until its initiation following MIDP vs. open surgery (ODP) at a national level.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for Stage I and II pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified from the National Cancer Data Base, 2010-2012.

RESULTS

A total of 1807 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma at 506 institutions (27.9% MIDP). After adjustment, those who underwent MIDP were more likely to have complete tumor resections and a shorter hospital length of stay. Patients undergoing MIDP vs. ODP were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy; time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation was not different between groups. After adjustment, overall survival for MIDP vs. ODP remained similar (HR 0.85, CI 0.67-1.10, p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

MIDP is associated with increased use of adjuvant chemotherapy; further study is needed to understand the etiology and impact of this association.

Hepatobilio-pancreatic robotic surgery: initial experience from a single center institute

The use of robotic surgery in the hepatobilio-pancreatic (HBP) field is still limited. Our aim is to present our early experience of robotic liver resection. A retrospective review of robotic pancreatic and liver resection was performed at Sanchinarro University hospital from October 2010 to April 2016. Since the beginning of the robotic program in our center, 22 hepatic procedures and 45 pancreatic robotic procedures have been performed. Of the 21 patients subjected to liver resection, 13 (65%) were for malignancy. There were two left hepatectomies, one right hepatectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation staged procedure (both steps by robotic approach), three bisegmentectomies and three segmentectomies, eight wedge resections, and three pericystectomies. The mean operating time was 282 min. The overall conversion rate and postoperative complication rate were 4.7 and 19%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.4 days (range 4-64 days). Of the 45 patients subjected to pancreatic resection, 22 were male and 23 female. The average age of all patients was 62 years (range 31-82 years). The mean operating room (OR) time was 370 min (120-780 min). Among the procedures performed were 15 pancreatico-duodenectomies, 19 distal pancreatectomies, and 11 enucleations. All procedures in the HBP area were R0. Our early experience shows that robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure in the HBP area. The complication and mortality rates are comparable to those of open surgery, but with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Modified Hand-Sewn Closure With Retroperitoneal Tissue-covering Method Prevents Pancreatic Fistula in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the stapler transection of the pancreas remains the preferred method; however, pancreatic fistula continues to be a critical unsolved problem. The aim of this study was to compare complications associated with distal pancreatectomy, especially regarding the formation of pancreatic fistula, with particular attention to the stapler and hand-sewn closure technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2004 and June 2012, 47 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These patient's pancreatic bodies were similar, and they were subjected to closure of the pancreatic stump either by stapler (Staple group, n=21) or by a modified hand-sewn technique (Sewn group, n=26), and were subsequently retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The incidence of PF was significantly higher in the "Staple group" compared with the "Sewn group." Likewise, the amylase levels in the drainage fluid, were significantly higher in the "Staple group" compared with the "Sewn group." Patients in the Sewn group had shorter median hospital stay compared with those in the Sewn group (5 vs. 8 d, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-layer hand-sewn technique is a simple method, and it significantly decreased the incidence of PF and hospital stay compared with the use of staples in laparoscopy.

The difficulties encountered in conversion from classic pancreaticoduodenectomy to total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND:

Recently, total laparoscopic pancreatectomy has been performed at many centres as an alternative to open surgery. In this study, we aimed to present the difficulties that we have encountered in converting from classic open pancreaticoduodenectomy to total laparoscopic pancreatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Between December 2012 and January 2014, we had 100 open pancreaticoduodenectomies. Subsequently, we tried to perform total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) in 22 patients. In 17 of these 22 patients, we carried out the total laparoscopic procedure. We analysed the difficulties that we encountered converting to TLPD in three parts: Preoperative, operative and postoperative. Preoperative difficulties involved patient selection, preparation of operative instruments, and planning the operation. Operative difficulties involved the position of the trocars, dissection, and reconstruction problems. The postoperative difficulty involved follow-up of the patient.

RESULTS:

According to our experiences, the most important problem is the proper selection of patients. Contrary to our previous thoughts, older patients who were in better condition were comparatively more appropriate candidates than younger patients. This is because the younger patients have generally soft pancreatic texture, which complicates the reconstruction. The main operative problems are trocar positions and maintaining the appropriate position of the camera, which requires continuous changes in its angles during the operation. However, postoperative follow-up is not very different from the classic procedure.

CONCLUSION:

TLPD is a suitable procedure under appropriate conditions.

Short- and long-term outcomes after enucleation of pancreatic tumors: An evidence-based assessment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enucleation of pancreatic tumors is rarely performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the published evidence for its short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases were searched from 1990 to March 2016. Studies including at least ten patients who underwent enucleation of pancreatic lesions were included. Data on the outcomes were synthesized and meta-analyzed where appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies involving 1316 patients were included in the systematic review. The postoperative mortality was 0.3%, and the postoperative morbidity was 50.3%, mainly represented by pancreatic fistula (38.1%). Endocrine insufficiency, exocrine insufficiency and tumor recurrence was observed in 2.4%, 1.1% and 2.3% of the patients respectively. Compared with typical resection, the operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and the incidence of endocrine and exocrine insufficiency were all significantly reduced after enucleation. The occurrence of pancreatic fistula was significantly higher in enucleation group, but overall morbidity, the reoperation rate and mortality were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in disease recurrence between the two groups. Compared with central pancreatectomy, enucleation had a shorter operation time, lower blood loss, less morbidity, and better pancreatic function. Compared with open enucleation, minimally invasive enucleation had a shorter operation time and a shorter length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Enucleation is an appropriate surgical procedure in selected patients with benign or low-malignant lesions of the pancreas. The benefits of minimally invasive approach need to be validated in further investigations with larger groups of patients.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pancreatic Disease - Current Status

Laparoscopic procedures have advanced to represent the new gold standard in many surgical fields. Although application in pancreatic surgery is hampered by the friable nature of the gland and the difficulty of its exposure, advanced technology and surgeons' experience are leading to an expansion of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. Addressing the whole range of main operative procedures, this review analyzes the literature data so far to give an overview about the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, its indications and limitations. In acute pancreatitis, a step-up approach from percutaneous drainage to retroperitoneoscopic necrosectomy seems beneficial. Transgastric necrosectomy also preserves the retroperitoneal compartment in contrast to the laparoscopic approach, which has widely been abandoned. In tumor pathology, laparoscopic access is adequate for small benign lesions in the pancreatic tail and body. Oncological outcome shows to be at least equal to the open procedure. Concerning laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, there is no evidence for a patients' benefit currently although several studies prove that it can be done.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in pancreatic tumours: a case-control study

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has become an increasingly used procedure in the surgical treatment of benign or borderline cystic and endocrine tumours. The feasibility and safety of this technique is well known but its results when compared with open distal pancreatectomy were rarely reported in literature. Data from 22 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were recorded in a prospective database from January 2006 to January 2010. These patients were matched with 22 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy from January 2000 to December 2005, regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, pancreatic pathology. Intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcome were compared between the two groups. Blood loss, amount of analgesic drugs administered, postoperative mortality and morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate were similar in laparoscopic and open groups. Tumour size was significantly smaller in laparoscopic group (2.0 ± 3.3 vs. 5.0 ± 4.2 cm; P = 0.038). Operative time was significantly shorter in open group (145 ± 49 vs. 225 ± 83 min, P = 0.045). Time to adequate oral intake and length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly better in laparoscopic group than in open group (3.0 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 0.7 days; P = 0.030 and 8.0 ± 1.3 vs. 11.0 ± 3.0 days; P = 0.011, respectively). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a feasible and safe surgical approach as well as open distal pancreatectomy.

Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies

Pancreatic surgery for malignancy is recognized as challenging for the surgeons and risky for the patients due to consistent perioperative morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the oncological long-term results are largely disappointing, even for those patients who experience an uneventfully hospital stay. Nevertheless, surgery still remains the cornerstone of a multidisciplinary treatment for pancreatic cancer. In order to maximize the benefits of surgery, the advent of both laparoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat pancreatic cancers with these new methodologies. The reduction of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pain, together with a shorter interval between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy, represent the potential advantages over conventional surgery. Lastly, a better cosmetic result, although not crucial in any cancerous patient, could also play a role by improving overall well-being and patient self-perception. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic surgery is, however, difficult in inexperienced hands and requires a dedicated training in both advanced laparoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The recent large diffusion of the da Vinci^® robotic platform seems to facilitate many of the technical maneuvers, such as anastomotic biliary and pancreatic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. The two main pancreatic operations, distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, are approachable by a minimally invasive path, but more limited interventions such as enucleation are also feasible. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be taken into account when considering the increasing costs of these newest technologies because the main concerns regarding these are the maintenance of all oncological standards and the lack of long-term follow-up. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatic cancer (and less aggressive tumors), with particular attention to the oncological results and widespread reproducibility of each technique.

Laparoscopic Hand-Assisted Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Presumed Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IMPNs) is increasingly more common, but their appropriate management is still evolving. We recently began performing laparoscopic hand-assisted enucleation or duodenal-sparing pancreatic head resection for these lesions with vigilant postoperative imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients with pancreatic cystic lesions were included in this single-center retrospective review from January 1, 2008 to March 30, 2013. Indication for surgical intervention was growth in size of the cyst, symptoms, cyst size >3 cm, and/or presence of a mural nodule. Twelve patients underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted enucleation, and 5 patients underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted pancreatic head resection.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 64 years old. The most common presenting symptom was abdominal pain. The indication for surgical intervention was growth in the cyst or symptoms in the majority of patients. Fourteen lesions were in the head/uncinate, two were in the pancreatic body, and one was in the tail. Final pathology was consistent with side-branch IPMN in 13 patients (1 with focal adenocarcinoma). Three patients had serous cysts, and 1 had a mucinous cyst. Three patients developed pancreatic leaks, which were controlled with intraoperative placed drains, whereas 1 patient required additional drain placement. Median time from surgery to latest follow-up imaging is over 2 years. No patients have developed recurrent cysts or adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal-sparing pancreatic head resection or pancreatic enucleation for patients with presumed side-branch IPMN is a safe and efficacious option, in terms of both operative outcomes and postoperative recurrence risk.

Risk of pancreatic fistula after enucleation of pancreatic tumours

Background

Enucleation is used increasingly for small pancreatic tumours. Data on perioperative outcome after pancreatic enucleation, especially regarding the significance and risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), are limited. This study aimed to assess risk-dependent perioperative outcome after pancreatic enucleation, with a focus on POPF.

Methods

Patients undergoing enucleation for pancreatic lesions between October 2001 and February 2014 were identified from a prospective database. A detailed analysis of morbidity was performed. Risk factors for POPF were assessed by univariable and multivariable analyses.

Results

Of 166 enucleations, 94 (56·6 per cent) were performed for cystic and 72 (43·4 per cent) for solid lesions. Morbidity was observed in 91 patients (54·8 per cent). Severe complications occurred in 30 patients (18·1 per cent), and one patient (0·6 per cent) died. Reoperation was necessary in nine patients (5·4 per cent). POPF was the main determinant of outcome and occurred in 68 patients (41·0 per cent): grade A POPF, 34 (20·5 per cent); grade B, ten (6·0 per cent); and grade C, 24 (14·5 per cent). Risk factors independently associated with POPF were: cystic tumour, localization in the pancreatic tail, history of pancreatitis and cardiac co-morbidity. Only cystic morphology was independently associated with clinically relevant POPF (grade B or C), occurring after enucleation in 25 (27 per cent) of 94 patients with cystic tumours versus nine (13 per cent) of 72 patients with solid tumours. Tumour size and distance to the main duct were not associated with risk of POPF.

Conclusion

Enucleation is a safe procedure in appropriately selected patients with a low rate of severe complications. POPF is the main determinant of outcome and is more frequent after the enucleation of cystic lesions.

Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open?

BACKGROUND

The latest studies on surgical and cost-analysis outcomes after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) highlight mixed and insufficient results. Whereas several investigators have compared surgical outcomes of LDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for adenocarcinomas, few similar studies have focused on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of PNET patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between 2004 and 2014. Patients were divided into LDP vs. ODP groups. Demographics, relevant comorbidities, oncologic variables, and cost-analysis data were assessed. Survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 171 distal pancreatectomies for PNETs, 73 were laparoscopic, whereas 98 were open. Patients undergoing LDP demonstrated significantly lower rates of postoperative complications (P=0.028) and had significantly shorter hospital stays (P=0.008). On multivariable analysis, positive resection margins (P=0.046), G3 grade (P=0.036), advanced WHO classification (P=0.016), TNM stage (P=0.018), and readmission (P=0.019) were significantly associated with poor survival; however, method of resection (LDP vs. ODP) was not (P=0.254). The median total direct costs of LDP vs. ODP did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to the recent considerable controversy surrounding the costs and surgical outcomes of LDP vs. ODP, our results show that LDP for PNETs is cost-neutral and significantly reduces postoperative morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes and survival.

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 pancreaticoduodenectomy: single-surgeon experience

BACKGROUND

Innovations in surgical strategies and technologies have facilitated laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, data regarding the short-term and long-term results of LPD are sparse, and this procedure is the primary focus of the current study.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and October 2013, a total of 31 consecutive patients received LPD, including hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 515.0 min (interquartile range 465.0-585.0 min). The median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 260.0 mL (interquartile range 150.0-430.0 mL). Conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy was required in three patients (9.7%) due to intraoperative pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 1, 3.2%) and tumor adherence to the superior mesenteric vein (n = 2, 6.5%). No significant differences between the surgical approaches were observed in regard to intraoperative and postoperative data. Postoperative severe complications (Clavien ≥ III) were detected in three (9.7%) patients, including one grade C pancreatic fistula, one grade B postoperative bleeding event, and one afferent loop obstruction. There were no deaths within 30 days following LPD. The final pathological results revealed duodenal adenocarcinoma in 14 (45.2%) patients, ampullary adenocarcinoma in four (12.9%) patients, distal common bile duct cancer in six (19.4%) patients, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in five (16.1%) patients, gastrointestinal stroma tumor in one (3.2%) patient, and chronic pancreatitis in one (3.2%) patient. All patients suffering from tumors underwent R0 resection (n = 30, 100.0%), with the optimal number of collected lymph nodes (median: 13, interquartile range 11-19). At the most recent follow-up, 20 patients were still alive, and the 1-, and 3-year overall survival for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were 100.0 and 71.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this study, LPD is feasible and technically safe for highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes and long-term survival.

Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open?

BACKGROUND

The latest studies on surgical and cost-analysis outcomes after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) highlight mixed and insufficient results. Whereas several investigators have compared surgical outcomes of LDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for adenocarcinomas, few similar studies have focused on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of PNET patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between 2004 and 2014. Patients were divided into LDP vs. ODP groups. Demographics, relevant comorbidities, oncologic variables, and cost-analysis data were assessed. Survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 171 distal pancreatectomies for PNETs, 73 were laparoscopic, whereas 98 were open. Patients undergoing LDP demonstrated significantly lower rates of postoperative complications (P=0.028) and had significantly shorter hospital stays (P=0.008). On multivariable analysis, positive resection margins (P=0.046), G3 grade (P=0.036), advanced WHO classification (P=0.016), TNM stage (P=0.018), and readmission (P=0.019) were significantly associated with poor survival; however, method of resection (LDP vs. ODP) was not (P=0.254). The median total direct costs of LDP vs. ODP did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to the recent considerable controversy surrounding the costs and surgical outcomes of LDP vs. ODP, our results show that LDP for PNETs is cost-neutral and significantly reduces postoperative morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes and survival.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution comparative study

Background

This study was designed to compare clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) performed at a single institution.

Methods

This retrospective study included 43 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy between 2009 and 2013. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: the laparoscopic surgery group (n = 20) and the open surgery group (n = 23). All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

There were no significant differences in operation time, rate of intraoperative transfusions, complications, or mortality between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss (210 ± 84.4 mL vs. 420 ± 91.1 mL), first flatus time (1.5 ± 1 d vs. 4 ± 2.5 d), diet start time (2 ± 0.7 d vs. 6 ± 1.8 d), and postoperative hospital stay (8 ± 3.5 d vs. 14 ± 5.5 d) were significantly less in the LDP group than in the ODP group. All patients had negative surgical margins at final pathology. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested (10 ± 2.1 vs. 11 ± 3.2) between the two groups.

Conclusions

LDP is a feasible and safe surgical approach as well as ODP, but has the advantages of an earlier return to normal bowel movements, normal diet, and shorter hospital stays than ODP.

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Dream or reality?

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be performed competently; however when minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches are implemented the indication is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. Nonetheless, LDP and LPD afford improved perioperative outcomes, similar to those observed when MIS is utilized for other purposes. This includes decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced post-operative pain, and expedited time to functional recovery. What then is its role for resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma? The biology of this aggressive cancer and the inherent challenge of pancreatic surgery have slowed MIS progress in this field. In general, the overall quality of evidence is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, short follow-up intervals, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Available evidence compiles heterogeneous pathologic diagnoses and is limited by case-by-case follow-up, which makes extrapolation of results difficult. Nonetheless, short-term surrogate markers of oncologic success, such as margin status and lymph node harvest, are comparable to open procedures. Unfortunately disease recurrence and long-term survival data are lacking. In this review we explore the evidence available regarding laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a promising approach for future widespread application.

Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

In comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, but comparative cost data for the two approaches are limited.

METHODS

Records of all distal pancreatectomies carried out from January 2009 to June 2013 were reviewed and stratified according to operative complexity. Patient factors and outcomes were recorded. Total variable costs (TVCs) were tabulated for each patient, and stratified by category [e.g. 'floor', 'operating room' (OR), 'radiology']. Costs for index admissions and 30-day readmissions were compared between LDP and ODP groups.

RESULTS

Of 153 procedures, 115 (70 LDP, 45 ODP) were selected for analysis. The TVC of the index admission was US$3420 less per patient in the LDP group (US$10 480 versus US$13 900; P = 0.06). Although OR costs were significantly greater in the LDP cohort (US$5756 versus US$4900; P = 0.02), the shorter average hospitalization in the LDP group (5.2 days versus 7.7 days; P = 0.01) resulted in a lower overall cost. The total cost of index hospitalization combined with readmission was significantly lower in the LDP cohort (US$11 106 versus US$14 803; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In appropriately selected patients, LDP is more cost-effective than ODP. The increased OR cost associated with LDP is offset by the shorter hospitalization. These data clarify targets for further cost reductions.

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy between minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Science Direct and Springer link databases (till March 31, 2014) were searched by computer to collect the articles that compared the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The trials were selected according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, and the quality of the included trials was assessed. The data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.2.7 software.

RESULTS: A total of 8 articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in perioperative complications, mortality, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric empty, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, mortality or R0 resection rate between the minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy group and open pancreaticoduodenectomy group (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stays between the two groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with shorter hospital stay and less estimated blood loss compared with open surgery, although there are no differences in preoperational complications or postoperative pathological diagnosis. Minimally invasive approach can be a reasonable alternative to laparotomy pancreaticoduodenectomy with potential advantages. Nevertheless, future large-volume, well-designed randomized control trials with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.