Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: our institution's 5-year experience

Intraoperative pancreatoscopy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: Application to the laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

/Purpose: Owing to the characteristics of IPMNs, which have variable skipped lesions along the main pancreatic duct (MPD), determining the surgical margins is very difficult. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and potential oncologic impact of intraoperative pancreatoscopy (IOP) compared to frozen section biopsy (FSB) in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic head IPMNs.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent PD for IPMNs of the pancreas between October 2007 and May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. IOP was performed in selected patients with IPMNs with inconclusive MPD involvement based on preoperative evaluations. Patients were divided into two groups, IOP group, FSB group. Clinicopathologic features and oncologic outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

60 patients underwent PD (laparoscopic or robotic, 42; open, 18) for pancreatic head IPMNs. IOP was safely performed in 28 patients, including minimally invasive approach used in 21 patients (35%). IOP group had a significantly larger MPD size (9.15 ± 4.79 mm vs 6.43 ± 4.11 mm, p = 0.021). Based on IOP, the initial surgical plan could be changed in 5 patients (17.8%) for complete resection. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients in FSB group and 3 patients in IOP group during the follow-up period (33.2 months, [range, 3.5-131.4 months]). Overall disease-free survival rate did not significantly differ between two groups (p = 0.529).

CONCLUSIONS

IOP can be safely performed in patients with pancreatic head IPMNs with MPD dilatation, even in the laparoscopic approach. Further studies evaluating the long-term oncologic effect of IOP for the management of IPMNs are required.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach.

Non-Hispanic Blacks undergoing distal pancreatectomy have higher risk-adjusted rates of morbidity and are more likely to be high-cost outliers

BACKGROUND

Few studies evaluate racial disparities in costs and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing DP. Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to evaluate the association between race and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

2,493 patients underwent DP; 265 (10%) were black, and 221 (8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. On MVR, black and Hispanic patients were less likely than whites to undergo surgery in high volume centers (OR 0.53, 95% CI [0.40, 0.71]; OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.32, 0.62]). Black patients had a greater risk of postoperative complication (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.07, 1.83]), 90-day readmission (OR 1.53, 95% CI [1.15, 2.02]), prolonged length of stay (OR 1.74, 95% CI [1.25-2.44]), and of being a high cost outliers (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.02, 1.91]) compared to white patients.

CONCLUSION

Black patients have increased risk of having a postoperative complication, prolonged hospitalization, and of being a high-cost outlier than non-Hispanic whites.

A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

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.

Pancreatic stump closure using only stapler is associated with high postoperative fistula rate after minimal invasive surgery

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of the present study is to determine the risk factors that can lead to POPF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted between January 2008 and December 2012. A total of 96 patients who underwent DP were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 patients (25%) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 72 patients (75%) open surgery. The overall morbidity rate was 51% (49/96). POPF (32/96, 33.3%) was the most common postoperative complication. Grade B fistula (18/32, 56.2%) was the most common fistula type according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition. POPF rate was significantly higher in the minimally invasive surgery group (50%, p=0.046). POPF rate was 58.6% (17/29) in patients whose pancreatic stump closure was performed with only stapler, whereas POPF rate was 3.6% (1/28) in the group where the stump was closed with stapler plus oversewing sutures. Both minimally invasive surgery (OR: 0.286, 95% CI: 0.106-0.776, p=0.014) and intraoperative blood transfusion (OR: 4.210, 95% CI: 1.155-15.354, p=0.029) were detected as independent risk factors for POPF in multi-variety analysis.

CONCLUSION

LDP is associated with a higher risk of POPF when stump closure is performed with only staplers. Intraoperative blood transfusion is another risk factor for POPF. On the other hand, oversewing sutures to the stapler line reduces the risk of POPF.

Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to study the changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at a single centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of sixty consecutive patients who underwent MIDP from September 2006 to November 2016 at a single institution. To study the evolution of MIDP, the study population was divided into three groups consisting of twenty patients (Group I, Group II and Group III).

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent MIDP with 11 (18.3%) requiring open conversions. The median operation time was 305 (range: 85-775) min and the median post-operative stay was 6 (range: 3-73) days. Fifteen procedures were spleen-saving pancreatectomies. Major post-operative morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 12 (20.0%) patients and there was no mortality or reoperations. There were 33 (55.0%) pancreatic fistulas, of which 15 (25.0%) were Grade B fistulas of which 12 (20.0%) required percutaneous drainage. Comparison between the three groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the frequency of procedures performed, increase in robotic-assisted procedures and proportion of asymptomatic tumours resected. There also tended to be non-significant decrease in open conversion rates from 25% to 5% between the three groups and increase in tumour size resected from 24 to 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

Comparison between the three groups demonstrated that MIDP was performed with increased frequency. There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of resections performed for asymptomatic tumours and resections performed through robotic assistance. There was also a non-significant trend towards a decrease in open conversions and increase in the size of tumours resected.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections in two medium-sized medical centres

To analyze the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic neoplasms, in two medium-volume centers in Northern Italy, a retrospective chart review was performed in the operative registries, searching for patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery via laparoscopy, irrespective of the final pathological nature of the resected neoplasm. For each case, a standard data extraction form was completed and the following data was extracted: age and sex, type of resection, estimated blood loss, length of the operation, number of harvested nodes, post-operative pancreatic fistula, major post-operative complications, mortality and final pathological diagnosis. The systematic literature research was also undertaken and the reported results were analyzed. A total of 55 cases were recorded, including 39 distal pancreatectomies and 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies. The most frequent indications leading to surgery were ductal adenocarcinoma (26 pts) and cystic neoplasm (22 pts). No post-operative death occurred in this series; pancreatic fistula occurred in 64% of distal pancreatectomies and 22% of pancreaticoduodenectomies. The mean operating times were 178' and 572', respectively. Both distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy proved to be feasible and were safely performed by laparoscopy, in two centers with medium-volume pancreatic caseload.

Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single-institution experience with 20 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery remains limited worldwide. In this study, we report our early experience with RAL HPB surgery in Singapore.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the first 20 consecutive patients who underwent RAL HPB surgery at a single institution over a 34-month period from February 2013 to November 2015 was conducted. The 20 cases were performed by three principal surgeons, of which 17 (85.0%) were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 56 (range 22-75) years and median tumour size was 4.0 (range 1.2-7.5) cm. The surgeries performed included left-sided pancreatectomies (n = 10), hepatectomies (n = 7), triple bypass with bile duct exploration for obstructing pancreatic head cancer with choledocholithiasis (n = 1), cholecystectomy for Mirizzi's syndrome (n = 1) and gastric resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (n = 1). The median operation time was 445 (range 80-825) minutes and median blood loss was 350 (range 0-1,200) mL. There was only 1 (5%) open conversion. There were 2 (10.0%) major morbidities (> Grade II on the Clavien-Dindo classification) and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. There was no reoperation for postoperative complications. The median postoperative stay was 5.5 (range 3-22) days.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience confirms the feasibility and safety of RAL HPB surgery.

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.

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 for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms: a two-center comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms in two institutions.

METHODS

This prospective comparative study included 91 consecutive patients who underwent LDP (n=45) or ODP (n=46) from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2012. Demographics, intra-operative characteristics, and post-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The median operating time in the LDP group was (158.7±38.3) min compared with (92.2±24.1) min in the ODP group (P<0.001). Patients had lower blood loss in LDP than in the ODP ((122.6±61.1) ml vs. (203.1±84.8) ml, P<0.001). The rates of splenic conservation between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (53.3% vs. 47.8%, P=0.35). All spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were conducted with vessel preservation. LDP also demonstrated better post-operative outcomes. The time to oral intake and normal daily activities was faster in the LDP group than in the ODP group ((1.6±0.5) d vs. (3.2±0.7) d, P<0.01; (1.8±0.4) d vs. (2.1±0.6) d, P=0.02, respectively), and the post-operative length of hospital stay in LDP was shorter than that in ODP ((7.9±3.8) d vs. (11.9±5.8) d, P=0.006). No difference in tumor size ((4.7±3.2) cm vs. (4.5±1.8) cm, P=0.77) or overall pancreatic fistula rate (15.6% vs. 19.6%, P=0.62) was found between the groups, while the overall post-operative complication rate was lower in the LDP group (26.7% vs. 47.8%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and effective for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms, featuring lower blood loss and substantially faster recovery.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

LDP vs ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case matched study from a single-institution

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) showed advantage of perioperation outcomes for benign and low-grade tumor of the pancreas. The application of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) didn’t gain popular acceptance and the number of LDP for PDAC remains low. We designed a case-matched study to analysis the short- and long-term outcomes of the patients undergoing either Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy for PDAC.

Method

From 2003 to 2013, 17 patients were underwent LDP and 34 patients were underwent ODP for PDAC were matched by tumor size, age and body mass index (BMI). The two groups’ demographic information, perioperative outcomes and survival data were compared.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the LDP and ODP groups. The intraoperative blood loss, first flatus, first oral intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly less in LDP group than ODP group (50 ml vs400ml, P = 0.000; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.001; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.003; 13d vs 15.5d, P = 0.022). The mean operation time, overall postoperative morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates were similar in the two groups. 5 patients (29.4 %) in LDP group and 7 patients (20.6 %) in ODP group underwent extended resections. There were no significant differences in tumor sizes (3.5 cm vs 3.9 cm, P = 0.664) and number of harvested lymph nodes (9 vs8 P = 0.534). The median overall survival for both groups was 14.0 months. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed extended resections, R1 resection, perineural invasion and tumor differentiation were associated with worse survival.

Conclusion

LDP is technically feasible and safe for PDAC in selected patients and the short-term oncologic outcomes were not inferior to ODP in this small sample study. However the long-term oncologic safety of LDP for PDAC has to be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

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

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Did the indications change? A review from literature

Pancreatic Cancer (PC) is the fourth cause of death for tumors in Western countries. Symptoms are not specific, and can vary according to the tumor size and place. Diagnostic workup includes CA 19-9, CT and MRI. Surgery is the only treatment for PC, associated to radio-chemo therapy. Laparoscopic approaches are actually used for PC treatment in few specialized centers, and could be an alternative to laparotomic surgery. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopy for PC treatment compared to laparotomy. We reviewed 19 articles in literature to assess the feasibility and efficacy of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LDP) and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The results have shown that LDP is nowadays a safe technique, and the outcomes are comparable to laparotomic surgery. Regarding to LPD instead, results are controversial and the data are still not sufficient to consider this technique as a valid alternative to laparotomic surgery.

Predictive factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a 10-year single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a treatment option for benign and borderline pancreatic tumors. However, pancreatic fistula (PF) remains a significant morbidity, contributing to the length of hospital stay and overall costs. In a consecutive series of 143 patients at a single institution, the predictive factors associated with PF after LDP were identified.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who had undergone LDP between January 2003 and December 2013 was conducted. Patient demographic data and clinicopathological parameters were analyzed to evaluate their correlation with the incidence of PF.

RESULTS

Among the 143 patients, the indications for surgery were benign disease in 117 (82%) and malignant tumors in 26 (18%). PF occurred in 25 (17%) patients, 10 (40%) of whom had clinically significant (grade B) PF. No grade C PF was observed. Multivariable analysis showed that pancreatic thickness was a significant predictive factor for PF (P < 0.001). A 12-mm cutoff value was based on the median pancreatic thickness in this series. Pancreatic texture alone was not a significant risk factor (P = 0.30); however, it became significant in patients with pancreatic thickness exceeding 12 mm (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic thickness exceeding 12 mm significantly increases the likelihood of PF after LDP. Pancreatic texture alone is not an independent risk factor for PF, but when combined with a thick parenchyma (>12 mm), a soft pancreas is predictive of PF.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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