Totally laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes

Outcomes evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching and learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been conducted on the short-term outcomes comparing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), particularly in the post-learning curve stage. This study aims to investigate surgical efficacy and provide clinical practices for selecting suitable techniques between LPD and RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RPD and LPD between April 2016 and December 2023. Baseline characteristics, pathological information, and perioperative data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to ensure the comparability of important factors between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 145 underwent RPD. Following PSM, 116 patients were included in each group and baseline characteristics were well matched. The RPD group demonstrated a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (5.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (350 vs. 500 ml, p = 0.031), and a higher rate of R0 resection (91.4% vs. 80.7%, p < 0.05) compared to the laparoscopic group. The incidence of B2-Grade postoperative pancreatic fistula (B2-POPF) was also lower in the RPD group compared to the LPD group (4.3% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.037). Among patients in the post-learning curve stage, perioperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RPD offered several advantages over LPD, including lower rates of conversion to open and blood loss, higher rates of R0 resection, and improved POPF outcomes. Other perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Both techniques appeared feasible and safe in experienced surgeons, though RPD was preferred in complex cases.

Retrospective analysis of delta hemoglobin and bleeding-related risk factors in pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Objective and accurate assessment of blood loss during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is crucial for ensuring the safety and efficacy of the procedure. While the visual method remains the most common clinical metric, many scholars argue that it significantly differs from actual blood loss and is inherently subjective.

AIM

To assess blood loss in PD via delta hemoglobin (ΔHb) and compare it with the visual method to predict bleeding-related risk factors.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 1722 patients who underwent PD from 2017 to 2022 at Shandong Provincial Hospital were divided into three groups: Open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), and conversion to OPD (CTOPD). Intraoperative ΔHb (IΔHb) was calculated via preoperative and 72-hour-postoperative hemoglobin concentrations, and its association with visually obtained estimated blood loss (EBL) was analyzed. Perioperative ΔHb (PΔHb) was calculated via preoperative and predischarge hemoglobin concentrations. We compared the differences in IΔHb and PΔHb among the three groups, and performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses of IΔHb and PΔHb.

RESULTS

The preoperative general information of patients showed no statistically significant difference among the three groups (P > 0.05). The IΔHb in the OPD, LPD, and CTOPD groups were 22.00 (12.00, 36.00), 21.00 (10.00, 33.00), and 33.00 (18.12, 52.24) g/L, respectively; And the PΔHb in the OPD, LPD, and CTOPD groups were 25.87 (13.51, 42.00), 25.00 (14.00, 45.00), and 37.48 (21.64, 59.65) g/L, respectively, values significantly differed (P < 0.05). IΔHb and EBL were significantly correlated (r = 0.337, P < 0.001). The results of univariate and multivariate regression analyses indicated that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification IV [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.330-37.811, P = 0.049] and preoperative total bilirubin > 200 μmol/L (95%CI: 2.805-8.673, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for IΔHb (P < 0.05), and ASA classification IV (95%CI: 45.934-105.485, P < 0.001), body mass index > 24 kg/m2 (95%CI: 1.285-9.890, P = 0.011), and preoperative total bilirubin > 200 μmol/L (95%CI: 6.948-16.797, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for PΔHb (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is a correlation between IΔHb and EBL in PD, so we can assess the patients' intraoperative blood loss by the ΔHb method. ASA classification IV, body mass index > 24 kg/m², and preoperative total bilirubin > 200 μmol/L increased perioperative bleeding risk.

Oncological Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ductal Adenocarcinomas of Pancreatic Head: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have been shown to be safe and feasible, but there is still a lack of high-level evidence on oncological outcomes for cephalic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing MIPR and open pancreatic resection (OPR) for pancreatic head cancer in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent radical-intent surgery for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC of the head at our institution between January 2013 and May 2023 were retrieved and analyzed, comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPR and OPR, using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

In the study period, 220 patients were selected. After matching, a total of 81 MIPRs and 81 OPRs were compared. No difference was found regarding R0 rate (OPR 83.9% vs. MIPR 74.1%, p = 0.122). Median overall survival (24 and 31 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.665) and disease-free survival (12 and 21 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.118) did not differ between the groups. The MIPR group was associated with a greater number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs. 16, p = 0.0008), longer operative time (565 vs. 420 min, p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (12 vs. 18 days; p = 0.0001). No differences between the groups were found regarding all other postoperative and pathological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding oncological outcomes, MIPR appeared to be comparable to OPR for treating patients with PDAC of the head. Despite an increased operative time, MIPR was associated with a greater number of LNs harvested and a shorter length of stay.

Effects of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy on Short-Term Surgical Outcomes and Postoperative Nutritional and Immunological Statuses: A Single-Institution Propensity Score-Matched Study

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and clinical impact of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) on postoperative nutritional and immunological indices.

Background

The surgical advantages of MIPD over OPD are controversial, and the postoperative nutritional and immunological statuses are unknown.

Methods

In total, 306 patients who underwent MIPD (n = 120) or OPD (n = 186) for periampullary tumors from April 2016 to February 2024 were analyzed. Surgical outcomes and postoperative nutritional and immunological indices (albumin, prognostic nutritional index [PNI], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR]) were examined by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) with well-matched background characteristics.

Results

PSM resulted in 2 balanced groups of 99 patients each. Compared with OPD, MIPD was significantly associated with less estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (P = 0.001), longer operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001), fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.001) (especially clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula [P = 0.018]), and a higher rate of textbook outcome achievement (70.7% vs 48.5%, P = 0.001). The number of dissected lymph nodes and the R0 resection rate did not differ between the 2 groups. In elective cases with textbook outcome achievement, the change rates of albumin, PNI, NLR, and PLR from before to after surgery were equivalent in both groups.

Conclusions

MIPD has several surgical advantages (excluding a prolonged operative time), and it enhances the achievement of textbook outcomes over OPD. However, the postoperative nutritional and immunological statuses are equivalent for both procedures.

Perioperative textbook outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis in a Korean minimally invasive pancreatic surgery registry

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate the perioperative composite textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cohort study was conducted across 10 institutions and included 1552 patients who underwent MIPD registered with the Korean Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery between May 2007 and April 2020. We analyzed perioperative textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after MIPD. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess outcomes based on the hospital volume of MIPD.

RESULTS

Among all patients, 21.8% underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. High-volume centers (performing >20 MIPD/year) performed 88.1% of the procedures. The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 11.5%. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) occurred in 15.1% of the cases. The 90-day mortality rate was 0.8%. The mean hospital stay was 13.7 days. Textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery success were achieved in 60.4% of patients, with higher rates observed in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers (62.2% vs. 44.7%, P <0.001). High-volume centers exhibited significantly lower conversion rates (5.4% vs. 12.5%, P =0.001), lower 90-day mortality (0.5% vs. 2.7%, P =0.001), and lower 90-day readmission rates (4.5% vs. 9.6%, P =0.006) than those low-volume centers.

CONCLUSION

MIPD could be performed safely with permissible perioperative outcomes, including textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery, particularly in experienced centers. The findings of this study provided valuable insights for guiding surgical treatment decisions in periampullary disease.

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

RESULTS

A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pancreatoduodenectomy, the primary surgical strategy for managing cholangiocarcinoma, is executed via two distinct methodologies, namely minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The selection between these surgical options is critical, as it directly influences patient outcomes, encompassing both short-term recovery metrics and long-term survival rates. Despite the clinical significance of these procedures, there exists a notable void in the literature regarding a comprehensive comparison of MIPD and OPD, particularly in assessing their respective efficacies and complications. This lack of detailed comparative analysis has left a gap in evidence-based guidance for clinicians faced with the decision of choosing the most appropriate surgical approach for their patients. The absence of robust data comparing the two techniques underscores the necessity for a meta-analysis that rigorously examines and contrasts the outcomes associated with MIPD and OPD. By drawing upon a wide array of international studies, this research aims to shed light on the advantages and potential drawbacks of each method, thereby providing a more informed basis for surgical decision-making in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

The "double-fired" gastro-jejunostomy as a form of improved efficiency during Whipple procedure

BACKGROUND

Gastro-jejunostomy (GJ) after pylorus-resecting pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is most commonly performed in a hand-sewn fashion. Intestinal stapled anastomosis are reported to be as effective as hand-sewn in terms of patency and risk of leakage in other indications. However, the use of a stapled gastro-jejunostomy hasn't been fully assessed in PD. The aim of the present technical report is to evaluate functional outcomes of stapled GJ during PD, its associated effect on operative time and related complications.

METHODS

The institutional database for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was retrospectically reviewed. Pylorus resecting open PD without vascular or multivisceral resections were considered for the analysis. The incidence of clinically significant delayed gastric emptying (DGE from the International Stufy Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B and C), other complications, operative time and overall hospitalization were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a 10-years study period, 1182 PD for adenocarcinoma were performed and recorded in the database. 243 open Whipple procedures with no vascular and with no associated multivisceral resections were available and constituted the study population. Hand-sewn (HS) anastomosis was performed in 175 (72 %), stapled anastomosis (St) in 68 (28 %). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups, with the exception of a higher rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the HS group (74 % St vs. 86 % HS, p = 0.025). Intraoperatively, a significantly reduced median operative time in the St group was observed (248 min St vs. 370 mins HS, p < 0.001). Post-operatively, rates of clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying (7 % St vs. 14 % HS, p = 0.140), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (10 % St, 15 % HS, p = 0.300), median length of stay (7 days for each group, p = 0.289), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (4.4 % St vs. 6.3 % HS, p = 0.415) and complication rate (22 % St vs. 34 % HS, p = 0.064) were similar between groups. However, readmission rates were significantly lower after St GJ (13.2 % St vs 29.7 % HS, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a stapled GJ anastomosis during a standard Whipple procedure is non-inferior to a hand-sewn GJ, with a comparable rate of DGE and no increase of gastrointestinal related long term complications. Further, a stapled GJ anastomosis might be associated with reduced operative times.

Pancreatojejunostomy: standing on the shoulders of giants. A single centre retrospective analysis

Gaining experience in pancreatic surgery could be demanding especially when minimally invasive approach is used. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) is one of the most critical steps during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Our aim was to investigate the impact of a surgeon's experience in performing PJ, especially in a subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic PD (LPD). Data of consecutive patients undergoing PD from 2017 to 2022 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: M group included patients in which PJ was performed by an experienced surgeon, D group included those receiving PJ by a less experienced one. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes. 187 patients were selected (157 in group M and 30 in group D). The cohorts differed in terms of median age (68 vs 74 years, p = 0.016), and previous abdominal surgery (41.4% vs 66.7%, p = 0.011), while no difference was found regarding risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The groups did not differ in terms of surgical outcomes. POPF rate was 15.9% and 10% in the M and D group (p = 0.578), respectively. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic PJ POPF rate was 16.0% and 17.7% in the M and D group (p = 0.867), respectively, without difference. No difference was found in terms of POPF in patients undergoing PD independently from the surgeon who performed the PJ, even during LPD. Moderate/high FRS, BMI > 30 kg/m2 and male sex, but not the surgeon who performed the PJ anastomosis, were independent predictors of POPF.

A comparative study of the "superior mesenteric artery first" approach versus the conventional approach in short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic head cancer remains controversial, and an appropriate surgical approach can help improve perioperative safety and oncological outcomes. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of the superior mesenteric artery first (SMA-first) approach in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing LPD.

METHODS

The data of 91 consecutive PDAC patients who underwent LPD from June 2014 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, the modified SMA-first approach group, using a combined posterior and anterior approach, and the conventional approach group. Perioperative outcomes, pathologic results, and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups, and propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The number of lymph nodes harvested was greater in the SMA-first approach group (19 vs. 15, P = 0.021), as did the results in the matched cohort (21 vs. 15, P = 0.046). No significant difference was observed in the R0 resection rate (93.3% vs. 82.6%, P = 0.197), but the involvement of the SMA margin was indeed lower in the SMA-first approach group (0 vs. 13%). There were no obvious variances between the two groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, operative time, overall and major postoperative complication rates, and mortality in either the original cohort or matched cohort. The median OS was 21.8 months in the SMA-first group, whereas it was 19.8 months in the conventional group (P = 0.900). Survival also did not differ in the matched cohort (P = 0.558). TNM stage, resection margin, overall complications, and adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors affecting OS.

CONCLUSION

The modified SMA-first approach is safe and feasible for PDAC patients undergoing LPD. It had a slight advantage in specimen quality, but OS was not significantly prolonged.

Preoperative nutritional support in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery affects PREPARE score accuracy

Background

This study aimed to validate the accuracy of the Preoperative Pancreatic Resection (PREPARE) risk score in pancreatic resection patients.

Patients and methods

This prospective study included 216 patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2015 and December 2018. All patients in our cohort with weight loss or lack of appetite received dietary advice and preoperative oral nutritional supplementation (600 kcal/day). Demographic, clinicopathological, operative, and postoperative data were collected prospectively. The PREPARE score and the predicted risk of major complications were computed for each patient. Differences in major postoperative complications were analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. The predicted and observed risks of major complications were tested using the C-statistic.

Results

The study included 216 patients [117 men (54.2%)] with a median age of 65.0 (30.0-83.0) years. The majority of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)' Physical Status score II (N = 164/216; 75.9%) and as "low risk" PREPARE score (N = 185/216; 85.6%) before the surgery. Only 4 (1.9%) patients were malnourished, with albumin levels of less than 3.5 g/dl. The most common type of pancreatic resection was a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (N = 122/216; 56.5%). Major morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 11.1% and 1.9%, respectively. The type of surgical procedure (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.849; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.208-12.264) and ASA score (HR: 3.089; 95% CI: 1.067-8.947) were significantly associated with the incidence of major postoperative complications in multivariate analysis. The receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.657 for incremental values and 0.559 for risk categories, indicating a weak predictive model.

Conclusion

The results of the present study suggest that the PREPARE risk score has low accuracy in predicting the risk of major complications in patients with consistent preoperative nutritional support. This limits the use of PREPARE risk score in future preoperative clinical routines.

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta-analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical-site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).

METHODS

A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Application of split pancreatic duct stent in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a classic surgical method for diseases, such as tumors at the lower end of the common bile duct, pancreatic head, and benign and malignant tumors of the duodenum. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most serious complications of LPD. To reduce the incidence of grade B or C POPF and other complications after LPD, we applied a split pancreatic duct stent combined with the characteristics of internal and external stent drainage. Between September 2020 and September 2022,12 patients underwent placement of the Split pancreatic duct stent during LPD. Data on basic characteristics of patients, surgical related indicators and postoperative POPF incidence were collected and analyzed. The results showed that the average operation time was 294.2 ± 36 minutes, average time for pancreaticojejunostomy was 35.9 ± 4.1 minutes, and average estimated blood loss was 204.2 ± 58.2 mL. Biochemical leakage occurred in 2 patients (16.7%), whereas no grade B or C POPF, 1 case (8.3%) had postoperative bleeding, and no death occurred within 30 days after the operation. Preliminary experience shows that the split pancreatic duct stent can effectively reduce the incidence of complications after LPD, especially grade B or C POPF.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction for pancreatic cancer: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction has been applied in pancreatic cancer patients with tumor infiltration or adherence. However, it is controversial whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with major vascular resection and reconstruction is feasible. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LPD with major vascular resection compared with OPD with major vascular resection.

METHODS

We reviewed data for all pancreatic cancer patients undergoing LPD or OPD with vascular resection at Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, between February 2018 and May 2022. We compared the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinicopathological data of the two groups to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LPD with major vascular resection.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction, including 25 LPDs and 38 OPDs. The LPD group had less intraoperative blood loss (200 vs. 400 mL, P < 0.001), lower proportion of intraoperative blood transfusion (16.0% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.047), longer operation time (390 vs. 334 min, P = 0.004) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 14 days, P = 0.005). There was no perioperative death in all patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of total postoperative complications, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying and abdominal infection between the two groups. No postpancreatectomy hemorrhage nor bile leakage occurred during perioperative period. There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate and number of lymph nodes harvested between the two groups. Patency of reconstructed vessels in the two groups were 96.0% and 92.1%, respectively (P = 0.927).

CONCLUSIONS

LPD with portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction was safe, feasible and oncologically acceptable for selected patients with pancreatic cancer, and it can achieve similar or even better perioperative results compared to open approach.

Multidimensional evaluation of the learning curve for totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a challenging procedure. We investigated the learning curve (LC) for LPD with a multidimensional analysis.

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing LPD between 2017 and 2021, operated by a single surgeon, were considered. A multidimensional assessment of the LC was performed through Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) and Risk-Adjusted (RA)-CUSUM analysis.

RESULTS

113 patients were selected. Rates of conversion, overall postoperative complication, severe complication and mortality were 4%, 53%, 29% and 4%, respectively. RA-CUSUM analysis showed a LC with three phases: competency (procedures 1-51), proficiency (procedures 52-94), and mastery (after procedure 94). Operative time was lower in both phase two (588.17 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.001) and three (534.72 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.004) with respect to phase one. Severe complication rate was lower in mastery as compared to competency phase (42% vs 6%, p = 0.005). During mastery phase a greater number of lymph nodes was harvested in comparison to proficiency phase.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our LC analysis, 52 procedures were required to achieve technical competency in LPD. Mastery, which corresponded to a reduction in operative time and surgical failures, was acquired after 94 procedures.

Perioperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study of 653 Cases in a Single Institution

Introduction: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining wide acceptance within pancreatic surgery. However, longitudinal data are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze and assess the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of LPD over a duration of 8 years. Methods: Patients who underwent LPD in our institution between November 2013 and September 2021 were included in this study. The perioperative outcomes were statistically analyzed. The long-term survival was studied over a median follow-up duration of 13 months. Results: In total, 653 consecutive patients treated at our institution were included, of which 617 cases underwent standard LPD and 36 cases underwent LPD with vascular resection. The rate of death in hospital, reoperation, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying were 4.4%, 10.3%, 11.9%, 12.9%, and 6.1% respectively. There were statistical differences in the intraoperative blood loss and transfusion, operation time, and the R0 resection rate between the LPD cases and LPD with vascular resection cases. A total of 526 cases were pathologically diagnosed of cancer. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 49.2%, 17.9%, and 17.9%, respectively, for pancreatic cancer with the median survival time of 12 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 76.9%, 60.8%, and 52.5%, respectively, for bile duct cancer with the median survival time of 35 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 80.2%, 62.2%, and 52.9%, respectively, for duodenal cancer with the median survival time of 53 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 72.5%, 54.5%, and 50%, respectively, for ampullary cancer with the median survival time of 55 months. Conclusion: LPD is a feasible and oncologically acceptable procedure with satisfying perioperative outcomes and long-term survival in a high-volume institution.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been extended to periampullary cancers, but the oncologic outcome of MIPD for distal bile duct cancer (DBDC) has not been confirmed yet.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for DBDC of stage I-IIb from 2015 to 2019 at a tertiary referral center were identified and divided into open PD (OPD) and MIPD groups, the latter including laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Survival was compared between the two groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using predetermined factors, and exploratory mediation analysis was performed using surgery-derived outcomes.

RESULTS

MIPD (n = 81) group had more female patients (46.9% vs 31.6%, p = 0.011) and longer operation time (366.2 min vs. 279.1 min, p < 0.001) than the OPD (n = 288) group before IPTW. Otherwise, intraoperative and immediate postoperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. In oncologic outcomes, MIPD group showed comparable 3-year overall survival (78.2% vs 75.0%, p = 0.062) and recurrence-free survival (51.2% vs 53.4%, p = 0.871) rates with OPD group before IPTW, and MIPD was not related with survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.26, p = 0.18) and recurrence (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.949) after IPTW with consideration of potential mediators. Sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching also showed similar results for survival (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.44, p = 0.312) and recurrence (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.88, p = 0.653).

CONCLUSION

MIPD and OPD groups showed similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes. MIPD could be a considerable treatment option without oncological compromise in high-volume centers.

Preliminary results of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnam: A retrospective analysis from a multi-center research

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to compare the results of LPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHOD

Data were retrospectively collected from a database of patients who underwent PD from January 2010 to May 2020. Intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up assessment studies were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were selected. Compared with OPD, LPD was fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (p = 0.015), a longer median operative time (p < 0.001), hospital stay (p = 0.034), a higher rate of bile leakage (p = 0.02), overall morbidity (p = 0.045), and re-operation (p = 0.044). There was no difference between the two groups in severe pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, delayed gastric emptying, Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III, or 30-day mortality. LPD had a similar number of excised lymph nodes, R0 resection rate, and long-term survival cases involving malignant tumors, ampulla of Vater cancer, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

In the early period, the benefit of LPD has not been found as there was a high rate of conversion to laparotomy, morbidity, and re-operation. Despite that, LPD is a feasible oncological approach with long-term survival comparable to OPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Standardized right artery first approach during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: technical aspects and perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The most debated aspects of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) concern the dissection of the pancreas from the surrounding vessels and the achievement of adequate resection margins, especially in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing LPD with right artery first approach from September 2020 to September 2021 for periampullary neoplasms (pancreatic, ampullary, duodenal, distal common biliary duct) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The overall cohort was divided into two groups: patients affected by pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and patients affected by other periampullary neoplasms (OP). Surgical and postoperative outcomes between PC and OP were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (15 PC and 16 OP) were selected. No difference was found between PC and OP in terms of baseline characteristics. Median resection time and overall surgical time of the entire cohort were 275 min and 530 min, respectively, without difference between the groups (p = 0.599 and 0.052, respectively). Blood loss was similar between the groups, being 350 ml in PC and 325 ml in OP (p = 0.762). One patient (3.2%) was converted to laparotomy. No difference was found between the groups in terms of pathological outcomes. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 17. The majority of the patients (83.9%) received an R0 resection (73.3% and 93.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.172). Postoperative surgical outcomes did not differ between the groups, excepting for overall complication rate that was higher in the OP group (26.7% vs 68.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Standardized right artery first approach during LPD was feasible and did not show worse surgical and postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer as compared to those affected by other periampullary neoplasms, except for a higher rate of minor complications.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC.

METHODS

The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P<0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival.

Pancreatic cancer - the past, the present, and the future

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has been and still is associated with a very poor prognosis. This is due to a lack of major breakthroughs with respect to early diagnosis, prognostication, prediction, as well as novel, targeted therapies. The benefits of surgery and chemotherapy are evident, but the fact that only some 10% of all patients have early, localized disease highlights the unmet need for new early detection methods. An improved understanding of tumor biology and the development of molecular markers detectable both in the circulation and in cancer tissues may underlie the development of new tools for optimizing both diagnosis and treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

If we do not improve precision oncology for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the prognosis will still remain dismal and the" burden" on society will increase substantially.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Novel biodegradable internal stent as a mitigation strategy in high-risk pancreaticojejunostomy: technical notes and preliminary results

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is the most feared complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), as it can lead to extremely poor outcomes. We herein report the preliminary results of an anastomotic technique based on the use of a novel internal biodegradable stent (IBS) to mitigate POPF sequelae. Between October 2020 and May 2021, all patients undergoing PD with high-risk pancreatic anastomosis received a pancreato-jejunal (PJ) anastomosis with an Archimedes™ IBS placement. Fifteen patients comprised our study cohort. In 11 cases, a 2-mm Archimedes™ stent was used, and in the remaining four patients, a 2.6-mm stent was used. Overall postoperative complications occurred in eight patients, with four cases being severe. Two patients developed CR-POPF, with one of them dying. In our small preliminary series, PJ anastomosis with an Archimedes™ IBS showed encouraging results in terms of CR-POPF incidence. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Is routine CT scan after pancreaticoduodenectomy a useful tool in the early detection of complications? A single center retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

The clinical impact of routine CT imaging after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has not been properly investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of routine CT scan after PD for the detection of postoperative complications.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing PD and receiving routine postoperative CT imaging were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was accuracy of CT imaging in identifying major complications. The secondary endpoint was identification of preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with severe complications. A subgroup analysis of CT scan accuracy in identifying severe complications in patients stratified by fistula risk score (FRS) and presence of early clinical alterations was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included. Routine CT scan had low specificity (Sp = 0.36) and high sensitivity (Sn = 0.98) for predicting major complications, with an accuracy of 0.57. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, only fistula moderate-high FRS (p = 0.029) was independently associated with severe complications. In patients with negligible-low FRS, CT scan showed a Sp of 0.63 and a Sn of 1.0 with an accuracy of 0.69. In patients with moderate-high FRS, CT scan had a Sp of 0.19, a Sn of 0.97 and an accuracy of 0.5. In the 20 (14%) patients with negligible-low FRS and no clinical alterations, no deaths or readmissions occurred regardless of CT findings, while one severe complication occurred in the positive CT scan group. In all other groups, no deaths or readmissions occurred in case of negative CT, with only one severe complication in the moderate-high FRS group with clinical alterations. In case of positive CT, the rate of severe complications was 47% in case of negligible-low FRS and clinical alterations, 40% in case of moderate-high FRS with no clinical alterations, and 45% in case of moderate-high FRS and clinical alterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine postoperative CT scan after PD should not be performed in patients with negligible-low FRS and no clinical alterations. In all other patients, a negative CT scan appears to be highly accurate in identifying patients who will have an uneventful course and who could benefit from early discharge.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

RESULTS

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Quality of Life Associated with Open vs Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open (O-PD) vs minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD), using a combination of validated qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2017 to 2019, patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were enrolled and presented with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary surveys preoperatively, before discharge, at first postoperative visit and approximately 3 to 4 months after operation ("3 months"). Longitudinal plots of median QoL scores were used to illustrate change in each score over time. In a subset of patients, content analysis of semistructured interviews at postoperative time points (1.5 to 6 months after operation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 56 patients who underwent PD, 33 had an O-PD (58.9%). Physical and functional scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline by 3 months. No significant differences were found in any domains of QoL at baseline and in the postoperative period between patients who underwent O-PD and MI-PD. Qualitative findings were concordant with quantitative data (n = 14). Patients with O-PD and MI-PD reported similar experiences with complications, pain, and wound healing in the postoperative period. Approximately half the patients in both groups reported "returning to normal" in the 6-month postoperative period. A total of 4 patients reported significant long-term issues with physical and functional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses in patients undergoing PD, we found no association between operative approach and QoL in patients who underwent O-PD vs MI-PD. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques for PD and the steep learning curve associated with these techniques, continued assessment of patient benefit is critical.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matching analysis of long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown the short-term feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are comparable to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the long-term oncological safety of LPD in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LPD or OPD between July 2014 and July 2018 at our institution were identified, and those with resectable, pathologically diagnosed PDAC were analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between groups. Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

The original cohort consisted of 64 LPD and 80 OPD cases, in which, the laparoscopic group had a significantly longer median OS (25 vs. 17 months; P = 0.034). A higher proportion of laparoscopic patients received adjuvant therapy (51.6 vs. 32.5%; P = 0.021). PSM analysis identified 47 patient pairs. No significant differences in OS (21 vs. 17 months; P = 0.220) or adjuvant therapy utilization (53.2 vs. 38.3%; P = 0.248) were observed between the matched groups. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that receiving adjuvant therapy (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68), histopathological differentiation (poor vs. moderate-to-well differentiation; HR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26-2.95), and sex (female vs. male, HR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.30-0.75) were independent predictors of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be comparable to OPD in terms of long-term safety for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma when performed in a high-volume center.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Hepatic vascular anomalies during totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: challenging the challenge

The presence of hepatic vascular anomalies may add challenges to an already difficult surgery such as pancreatoduodenectomy, particularly when performed laparoscopically. Thus, our aim was to assess the impact of an aberrant right hepatic artery (aRHA) on postoperative outcomes during laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) . Data of patients who underwent LPD were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed. Patients with types III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX anomalies according to Michels' classification were included in the aRHA group and were compared with the remaining patients (nRHA group). 72 patients underwent LPD; 14 of these had an aRHA (19.4%). Except for BMI (p = 0.021), the two groups did not differ in terms of clinico-pathological characteristics. The two groups had similar postoperative complications (p = 0.123), pancreatic fistula (p = 0.790), biliary leakage (p = 0.209), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (p = 0.790), reoperations (p = 0.416), and mortality (p = 0.312). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was higher in aRHA group (p = 0.032), while R0 resection rate was similar between groups (p = 0.635). At the multivariate analysis, only moderate/high FRS (OR 3.95, p = 0.039) was an independent predictor of postoperative complications. This study suggests that aRHA has no negative impact on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing LPD.

Long-Term Survivors after Upfront Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An Actual 5-Year Analysis of Disease-Specific and Post-Recurrence Survival

BACKGROUND

Data on long-term actual survival in patients with surgically resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) and post-recurrence survival (PRS) in patients who underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent upfront surgical resection for PDAC between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included PDAC arising in the background of an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. All alive patients had a minimum follow-up of 60 months. Independent predictors of PRS, DSS, and survival > 5 years were searched.

RESULTS

Of the 176 patients included in this study, 48 (27%) were alive at 5 years, but only 20 (11%) had no recurrence. Median PRS was 12 months. In the 154 patients after disease recurrence, independent predictors of shorter PRS were total pancreatectomy, G3 tumors, early recurrence (< 12 months from surgery), and no treatment at recurrence. Median DSS was 36 months. Independent predictors of DSS were CA19-9 at diagnosis > 200 U/mL, total pancreatectomy, N + status, G3 tumors and perineural invasion. Only the absence of perineural invasion was a favorable independent predictor of survival > 5 years.

CONCLUSION

More than one-quarter of patients who underwent upfront surgery for PDAC were alive after 5 years, although only 11% of the initial cohort were cancer-free. Long-term survival can also be achieved in tumors with more favorable biology in an upfront setting followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.

The comparation of short-term outcome between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex and delicate operations in abdominal surgery. With the development of laparoscopic techniques, more and more pancreatic experts have become skilled in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, the short-term efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear. Here, we performed a propensity score matching study aiming to compare the short outcomes of patients who underwent LPD or OPD after the learning curve and established a risk model of pancreatic fistula. The data of 346 patients who had OPD or LPD from July 2015 to January 2020 were retrieved. After a 1:1 matching, 224 patients remained. The operation time was significantly longer (P = 0.001) but the amount of bleeding was significantly lower (P = 0.001) in the LPD group than in the OPD group. Patients in LPD group had fewer blood transfusions (P = 0.002) than those in OPD group. More lymph nodes (P < 0.001) were dissected in LPD group. The rate of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was significantly higher in the LPD group than in the OPD group (16.1% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.002). By multi variate Logistic regression analysis, we identified pancreatic tumor, malignancy and low body mass index were risk factors of Grade B/C pancreatic fistula after PD operation. Then, we developed a Grade B/C pancreatic fistula nomogram with the risk factors. The C-index of the nomogram was 0.836 (95% CI 0.762-0.910). In conclusion, LPD could be technically feasible, get less trauma and achieve similar short-term outcome as compared with OPD.