Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A bibliometric method applied to the top one hundred cited articles

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is considered one of the most complex procedures in general surgery. The number of articles on MIPD has been increasing annually. However, published reports often have complex research directions, and the focal points frequently change. Therefore, a comprehensive review and organization of the literature in this field is necessary.

AIM

To summarize current research, predict future hotspots and trends, and provide insights for MIPD development.

METHODS

To conduct the study, the Web of Science Core Collection was searched for relevant articles. The analysis focused on the top 100 articles in the field. Two widely used bibliometric tools, CiteSpace and VOSviewer, were used to examine various aspects, including research directions, authors, countries, institutions, journals, and keywords.

RESULTS

The top 100 articles were published between 2005 and 2022, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 51). Among the contributing institutions, Pancreas Center of the University of Chicago and the Health System of the University of Chicago had the highest number of publications (n = 17). In terms of individual authors, "Zeh HJ" and "Zureikat AH" led with 13 articles each. The high-frequency keywords in the literature encompassed three main areas: Surgical modality, perioperative outcomes, and the learning curve. These keywords were further categorized into seven primary clusters, with the largest being "laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy".

CONCLUSION

The most influential studies predominantly originate from the United States, and there is growing interest in robotic surgery. Despite MIPD's potential benefits, further research is required to address technical challenges and improve outcomes.

Impact of patient age on outcome of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy in elderly patients may be associated with increased postoperative mortality, but studies in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are scarce.

METHODS

International multicenter retrospective study including patients aged >60 years undergoing MIPD (robot-assisted and laparoscopic) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), were categorized by age: 60-69, 70-79, and 80+ years. In each category, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed (1:1 ratio) between MIPD and OPD. Primary outcome was 30-day/in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3820 patients, we matched 1468 patients aged 60-69, 1154 patients aged 70-79, and 196 patients aged 80+ years. In patients aged 60-69 and 70-79 years, MIPD was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss and a longer length of stay. Major morbidity was higher after MIPD with similar 30-day/in-hospital mortality. The R0 resection rate was higher after MIPD. In patients aged 80+ years, besides a longer operative time in MIPD, outcomes were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that increasing age worsens mortality of MIPD. MIPD was associated with longer operative time, higher rate of major morbidity, prolonged length of stay versus less blood loss and a higher R0 resection in patients aged 60-69 and 70-79 years. These differences continue in patients aged 80+ years, but became less evident.

Exploring the landscape of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: Progress, challenges, and future directions

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas's unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Open Reconstruction: The Buddha's Middle Path

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy.

RESULTS

We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410 min; P =0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360 mL; P =0.03 and 13 vs. 11 d; P =0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections.

CONCLUSIONS

LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as an alternative to open technique in treating periampullary tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) remain unclear. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors, with a particular focus on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient subgroup.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors. Endpoints and sensitive analysis were conducted for short-term endpoints. All statistical analysis was performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs yielding 1018 patients with periampullary tumors were included, of whom 511 (50.2%) were randomized to the LPD group. Total follow-up time was 90 days. LPD was associated with a longer operation time (MD 66.75; 95% CI 26.59 to 106.92; p = 0.001; I2 = 87%; Fig. 1A), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 124.05; 95% CI - 178.56 to - 69.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 86%; Fig. 1B), and shorter length of stay (MD - 1.37; 95% IC - 2.31 to - 0.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 14%; Fig. 1C) as compared with OPD. In terms of 90-day mortality rates and number of lymph nodes yield, no significant differences were found between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LPD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with periampullary tumors, with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of stay.

Causes and predictors of unplanned reoperations within 30 days post laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive analysis

Objective

To delineate the risk factors and causes of unplanned reoperations within 30 days following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

Methods

A retrospective study reviewed 311 LPD patients at Ningbo Medical Center Li Huili Hospital from 2017 to 2024. Demographic and clinical parameters were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses, with P < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

Out of 311 patients, 23 (7.4%) required unplanned reoperations within 30 days post-LPD, primarily due to postoperative bleeding (82.6%). Other causes included anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, and afferent loop obstruction. The reoperation intervals varied, with the majority occurring within 0 to 14 days post-surgery. Univariate analysis identified significant risk factors: diabetes, liver cirrhosis, elevated CRP on POD-3 and POD-7, pre-operative serum prealbumin < 0.15 g/L, prolonged operation time, intraoperative bleeding > 120 ml, vascular reconstruction, soft pancreatic texture, and a main pancreatic duct diameter ≤3 mm (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed independent risk factors: pre-operative serum prealbumin < 0.15 g/L (OR = 3.519, 95% CI 1.167-10.613), CRP on POD-7 (OR = 1.013, 95% CI 1.001-1.026), vascular reconstruction (OR = 9.897, 95% CI 2.405-40.733), soft pancreatic texture (OR = 5.243, 95% CI 1.628-16.885), and a main pancreatic duct diameter ≤3 mm (OR = 3.462, 95% CI 1.049-11.423), all associated with unplanned reoperation within 30 days post-LPD (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Postoperative bleeding is the primary cause of unplanned reoperations after LPD. Independent risk factors, confirmed by multivariate analysis, include low pre-operative serum prealbumin, elevated CRP on POD-7, vascular reconstruction, soft pancreatic texture, and a main pancreatic duct diameter of ≤3 mm. Comprehensive peri-operative management focusing on these risk factors can reduce the likelihood of unplanned reoperations and improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pancreatoduodenectomies in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: analysis of ACS-NSQIP data

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents a significant challenge owing to its aggressive nature. Traditionally performed as open surgery, the advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) including laparoscopic and robotic techniques, offers a potential alternative. This study assessed the use and outcomes of MIS and open PD for PDAC treatment.

METHODS

We analyzed ACS-NSQIP data (2015-2021) using regression models to compare patient outcomes across open PD, MIS PD, and conversions from MIS to open (MIS-O).

RESULTS

Of 19,812 PDAC patients, 1,293 (6.53%) underwent MIS, 18,116 (91.44%) underwent open PD, and 403 (2.03%) underwent MIS converted to open PD (MIS-O). The MIS rate increased from 6.1% to 9.2%. Black patients had a higher MIS-O rate (RR, 1.55; p = 0.025). Open PD was associated with more severe conditions (ASA ≥ III, malnutrition) and prior radiation therapy. MIS patients more often had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Complex procedures, such as vein resection, favored open PD. Need for arterial resection was associated with MIS-O (RR, 2.11; p = 0.012), and operative time was significantly associated with MIS (OR: 4.32, 95% CI: 3.43-5.43, p-value: < 0.001) No differences in the overall morbidity or 30-day mortality were observed. MIS led to shorter stays but higher risks of reoperation and pulmonary embolism. MIS-O increased the delayed gastric emptying rate (RR, 1.79; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

During 2015-2021, an increasing number of patients with PDAC are undergoing MIS PD. Morbidity and mortality did not differ between open and MIS PD. MIS was performed more frequently in patients with better nutritional status and lower ASA, or when vascular resection was not anticipated. In well selected patients, short-term outcomes of MIS and open PD seem similar.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Long-term outcome from a tertiary care centre

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy (WPD) is one of the most advanced minimally invasive procedures. In recent years, with advancements in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic WPD has been increasingly adopted as a safe and feasible technique. This study aims to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic WPD to open WPD in resectable ampullary, periampullary and head of pancreas malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent WPD from January 2015 to January 2021 at the department of surgical gastroenterology in a tertiary care medical college hospital was conducted. Patient demographics and pre-operative details, intraoperative parameters (operating time and blood loss), post-operative length of hospital stay, median intensive care unit (ICU) stay, time to resume oral diet, post-operative complications, interventional procedures, mortality, 3-year survival, 3 year recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients underwent WPD during our study period; 14 patients underwent laparoscopic WPD and 28 patients underwent open WPD. None required conversion. The majority of the patients had periampullary carcinoma in both the groups. Laparoscopic WPD showed a trend towards shorter ICU stays, hospital stays and surgical site infections (SSIs) compared to open WPD. The median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic WPD group (380 min) compared to the open group (285 min). However, median blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (250 mL vs. 300 mL). The pancreas-specific post-operative complications like delayed gastric emptying, post-operative pancreatic fistula or post-operative pancreatic haemorrhage did not differ significantly between the groups. All patients had R0 resection and the mean lymph node yield was comparable between the two groups (14.92 vs. 13.42). The reoperation rate or mortality rate did not show any statistical significance between the two groups. The overall survival was 46 months in the open group and 48 months in the laparoscopic group. Three-year survival was 74.1% in the open WPD group and 69.2% in the laparoscopic group. Three-year recurrence-free survival was 55.5% in the open group and 69.23% in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic WPD appears to be safe and feasible, with similar short-term and long-term survival outcomes. With a trend favouring laparoscopic WPD in terms of blood loss, hospital and ICU stay and post-operative SSIs, it should be offered to selected patients when the expertise is available.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the key worry in the ongoing debate about the safety and effectiveness of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD). Laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD), a hybrid approach combining laparoscopic resection and anastomosis with a small incision, is an alternative to TLPD. This study compares the short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy of LAPD vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data of all patients who underwent LAPD or OPD for periampullary carcinoma at a tertiary care center in Northeast India from July 2019 to August 2023 was done. A total of 30 LAPDs and 30 OPDs were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. Demographic data, intraoperative and postoperative data (30 days), and pathological data were compared.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 93 patients, 30 underwent LAPD and 62 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching, the matched cohort included 30 patients in both groups. The LAPD presented several advantages over the OPD group, including a shorter incision length, reduced postoperative pain, earlier initiation of oral feeding, and shorter hospital stays. LAPD was not found to be inferior to OPD in terms of pancreatic fistula incidence (Grade B, 30.0% vs. 33.3%), achieving R0 resection (100% vs. 93.3%), and the number of lymph nodes harvested (12 vs. 14, p = 0.620). No significant differences in blood loss, short-term complications, pathological outcomes, readmissions, and early (30-day) mortality were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPD has comparable safety, technical feasibility, and short-term oncological efficacy.

Feasibility, safety and oncological short-term outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer: Findings from a large sample from Vietnam

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for treatment of periampullary cancer in selected patients. However, this is a difficult procedure with a high complication rate. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 85 patients with suspected periampullary cancer who underwent LPD from February 2017 to January 2022 at University Medical Center at Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Among these, 15 patients were excluded from the data analysis because of benign disease confirmed by postoperative pathological examination. Among 70 patients, the mean age was 58.9 ± 8.9 years old and 51.4% were female. The conversion rate to open surgery was 7.1% (n = 5). Among those underwent LPD, the mean operating time and estimated blood loss were 509 ± 94 minutes and 267 ± 102 mL, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days, interquartile range (IQR) 7-12 days. The percentage of cumulative morbidity, pancreatic fistula and major complication was 35.4%, 12.3%, and 13.8%, respectively. The median of comprehensive complication index (CCI) was 26.2 (IQR 20.9-29.6). Three patients required reoperation due to severe pancreatic fistula (n = 2) and necrotizing pancreatitis (n = 1). There was no death after ninety-day. The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.6 ± 5.1. The percentage of R0 resection was 100%. With properly selected patients, LPD can be a feasible, safe and effective approach with acceptable short-term outcomes.

A propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there value to a laparoscopic approach?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been found safe and associated with advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in prior studies. We compared outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single institution after applying technical aspects and perioperative care learned from laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to the open pancreaticoduodenectomy practice.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2020, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified, and information was collected in a prospective fashion. Open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242) were performed using the same selection criteria, operative technique, and recovery protocols at a single institution. Propensity score matching was performed, and then perioperative data and 90-day outcomes were compared, and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, including open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242). After excluding those undergoing total pancreatectomy or major vascular or concomitant organ resection, there were 497 patients (open pancreaticoduodenectomy = 301 and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy = 196). Propensity score matching was performed, and 187 open pancreaticoduodenectomy patients were matched to 187 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Operative time (475 vs 280 minutes) was longer, and estimated blood loss (150 vs 212 mL) was less for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Pancreatic fistula (18.8% vs 5.4%) and delayed gastric emptying (18.8% vs 9.7%) were higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, major morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and readmissions were nonsignificantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Intensive care use and overall costs were significantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, open pancreaticoduodenectomy offers similar to improved outcomes over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with less use of perioperative resources, thereby offering better value to patients requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy.

The significance of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short-term complications and survival benefits of pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The established association between the inflammatory marker, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and both long-term surgical prognosis and short-term postoperative complications is well-recognized. However, its prognostic value in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is yet to be ascertained. This meta-analysis investigates the prognostic relevance of preoperative NLR in PD patients.

METHOD

We systematically searched electronic databases to identify studies exploring the relationship between pre-treatment blood NLR levels and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and immediate postoperative complications in PD patients. Statistical evaluations, using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 12, focused on hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs). Additionally, subgroup analyses, publication bias tests, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULT

Our analysis encompassed 18 retrospective studies, with NLR cutoff values ranging from 2 to 3.8. The meta-analysis revealed that PD patients with elevated NLR had diminished OS and DFS, evidenced by an HR of 1.35 (95% CI: 1.11-1.64, p ​= ​0.003) and 1.62 (95% CI: 1.15-2.27, p ​= ​0.005), respectively. Moreover, NLR emerged as an independent determinant of immediate postoperative complications, indicated by an OR of 1.91 (95% CI: 1.01-3.59, p ​= ​0.013) and an HR of 2.15 (95% CI: 1.23-3.73, p ​< ​0.01).

CONCLUSION

NLR serves as a significant prognostic indicator for both OS and DFS following PD and is a reliable predictor of postoperative complications. Preoperative Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) is a significant prognostic indicator for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

Teaching modern pancreatic surgery: close relationship between centralization, innovation, and dissemination of care

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is increasingly moving towards centralization in high-volume centres, supported by evidence on the volume-outcome relationship. At the same time, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established worldwide, and interest in new techniques, such as robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, is growing. Such recent innovations are reshaping modern pancreatic surgery, but they also represent new challenges for surgical training in its current form.

METHODS

This narrative review presents a chosen selection of literature, giving a picture of the current state of training in pancreatic surgery, together with the authors' own views, and in the context of centralization and innovation towards minimally invasive techniques.

RESULTS

Centralization of pancreatic surgery at high-volume centres, volume-outcome relationships, innovation through minimally invasive technologies, learning curves in both traditional and minimally invasive surgery, and standardized training paths are the different, but deeply interconnected, topics of this article. Proper training is essential to ensure quality of care, but innovation and centralization may represent challenges to overcome with new training models.

CONCLUSION

Innovations in pancreatic surgery are introduced with the aim of increasing the quality of care. However, their successful implementation is deeply dependent on dissemination and standardization of surgical training, adapted to fit in the changing landscape of modern pancreatic surgery.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Increased Adoption and Improved Outcomes: Is Laparoscopy Still Justified?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015-July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) -1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.

Application of Simplified Duct-to-Mucosa Pancreaticojejunostomy for Nondilated Pancreatic Duct in Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of simplified duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in a nondilated pancreatic duct in laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and 2 patients who underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients underwent pure laparoscopic surgery successfully with simplified duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy. The operation time of LPD was 365.11±41.56 minutes, the time of pancreaticojejunostomy was 28.39±12.58 minutes, and postoperative hospitalization time was 14.16±6.88 days on average. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients of LPD, including 2 cases of class B postoperative pancreatic fistula and 1 case of gastroparesis followed by gastrointestinal anastomotic perforation. The operative time of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy was 191.00±12.73 minutes, the time of pancreaticojejunostomy 36.00±5.66 minutes, and the postoperative hospitalization time 12.5±0.71 days on average.

CONCLUSIONS

The described technique is a simple and safe reconstruction procedure and suitable for patients with nondilated pancreatic duct.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Comparative analysis of opioid use between robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways using regional anesthesia and multimodality analgesia have decreased overall opioid use, but the additional benefits of robotic surgery in opioid reduction for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are unknown. We compared the inpatient opioid use between robotic PD and open PD.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open PD within a protocol evaluating preincisional regional anesthetic block bundles were compared to consecutively-treated patients undergoing robotic PD identified from a prospectively maintained single-institutional database. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pain scores and inpatient oral morphine equivalent (OME) use were compared between patients treated with robotic or open PD. Patients with a history of continuous-release opioid dependence were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 114 total patients, 25 underwent robotic PD and 89 underwent open PD. Intraoperative opioid use was not different (P = .87), nor were cumulative pain scores. Robotic PD patients used significantly fewer OMEs per day on postoperative days 1-4 (P = .039), used fewer total OMEs during hospitalization (robotic: median = 79, IQR 42.5-141; open: median = 126, IQR 61.3-203.8; P = .0036) and were discharged with fewer OMEs (robotic: median = 0, IQR 0-43.8; open: median = 25, IQR 0-75; P = .009) despite a shorter length of stay (robotic: median = 4, open: median = 5, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD patients required fewer inpatient OMEs than open PD while maintaining similar pain scores. A higher percentage of robotic PD patients tapered off of opioids prior to discharge than open surgery patients treated with a standardized opioid reduction protocol despite a shorter length of stay. These results provide a rationale for choosing robotic PD when feasible to minimize opioid use.

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.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3)

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation.

BACKGROUND

Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking.

METHODS

A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

Laparoscopic vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy-an Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

There is ongoing debate regarding the usefulness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study aimed to analyze all the randomized control trials published including the most recent one. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and MOOSE guidelines. Heterogeneity was measured using Q tests and I 2. The random-effects models were used to summarize the relative risks, odds ratios, and mean differences as appropriate. Four RCTs were included consisting of 818 patients. Four hundred eleven patients were in the laparoscopic group and 407 in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. Weighted baseline patient characteristics were similar except more patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and more males were there in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. There was no difference in-hospital stay, 90-day complication rate, 90-day mortality, R1 resection, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and bile leak between the two groups. Operative time was more in the laparoscopic group. Blood loss [mean difference - 132.12 ml (- 172.60, - 91.65)] and surgical site infection [risk ratio 0.41 (0.17-1.0)] were significantly lesser in laparoscopic group. There was no benefit in-hospital stay or clinical outcomes after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Blood loss and surgical site infection were lesser in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01572-0.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with conflicting results. An IPDMA may give more insight into the differences between LPD and OPD, and could identify high-risk subgroups.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases (October 2019). Out of 1410 studies, three randomized trials were identified. Primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III). Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk subgroups including patients with BMI of ≥25 kg/m2, pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, and malignancy.

RESULTS

Data from 224 patients were collected. After LPD, major complications occurred in 33/114 (29%) patients compared to 34/110 (31%) patients after OPD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.4, P = 0.257). No differences were seen for major complications and 90-day mortality LPD 8 (7%) vs OPD 4 (4%) (adjusted OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-1.3, P = 0.080). With LPD, operative time was longer (420 vs 318 min, p < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean difference -6.97 days). Outcomes remained stable in the high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

LPD did not reduce the rate of major postoperative complications as compared to OPD. LPD increased operative time and shortened hospital stay with 7 days.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background and Objectives: The role of laparoscopy during a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is not clearly defined. The purpose of this study was thus to compare the cost-effectiveness between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Materials and Methods: From 2010 to 2019, 140 patients underwent PD (60 LPD and 80 OPD). After 60-60 matching, the clinical-pathological characteristics, surgical technique, and type of rehabilitation were identical in both groups. Complications, R0 resection, and cost were compared. Results: Complication rates were 48% (12% Clavien-Dindo grade 3-4) in the LPD group and 64% (22% Clavien-Dindo grade 3-4) in the OPD group. The LPD group had significantly fewer pulmonary complications (6%) than the OPD group (20%) (P = .04). The oncological quality of the R0 resection did not differ between the two groups. The operating time was 312 ± 50 minutes in the OPD group and 392 ± 75 minutes in the LPD group (P < .001). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for the LPD group (13 ± 10) days compared to the OPD group (19 ± 8) days (P = .02). The average cost of total hospital stay was significantly lower for the LPD group compared to the OPD group (P = .02). Conclusions: Despite longer operative times, LPD had fewer (pulmonary) complications and reduced hospital costs.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy has increased in recent years, but the risk of postoperative VTE is undefined. We aimed to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy using an administrative dataset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted pancreatectomy database (2016-2018) were identified. VTE was compared between patients who underwent open or minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy directly and after propensity score matching 1:1 for demographics, comorbidities, and peri-/intra-operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 12,227 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy during the study period (open: n = 11,217; minimally invasive: n = 1010). Before matching, the VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (5.2% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.033), and minimally invasive resection was independently associated with VTE (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.09-2.06). After matching, there were 916 patients per group without differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy had longer median operative times (422 vs. 348 min). The VTE rate remained higher following minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy after matching (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.018), mainly driven by a higher DVT rate (3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher postoperative VTE rate compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Minimally invasive vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological adequacy: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has increased over the last decade. Most of the data on perioperative and oncological outcomes derives from single-center high-volume hospitals. The impact of MIPD on oncological outcomes in a multicenter setting is poorly understood.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to perform a propensity score matching analysis between MIPD vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes and surgical margins. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, length of stay, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 10,246 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2016. Among these patients, 1739 underwent MIPD. A propensity score matching analysis with a 1:2 ratio showed that the rate of lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes was significantly higher for MIPD compared to OPD, 68.4% vs 62.5% (P < .0001), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of positive margins, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. OPD was associated with an increased rate of length of stay > 10 days, 36.6% vs 33% for MIPD (P < .01). Trend analysis for the patients who underwent MIPD revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy increased during the study period, 73.1% between 2015 and 2016 vs 63.2% between 2010 and 2012 (P < .001). In addition, the rate of conversion to OPD decreased over time, 29.3% between 2010 and 2012 vs 20.2% between 2015 and 2016 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity score matching analysis, the MIPD approach was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy and a shorter length of stay compared to OPD. The surgical margins status, 90-day mortality, and overall survival were similar between the groups.

Hybrid Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy. A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid laparoscopic techniques have been proposed as a good transition from open to complete minimally invasive approach especially in complex surgical procedures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A broad search strategy with terms "laparoscopy" and "pancreatoduodenectomy" was used. Included studies were analyzed by quantitative meta-analysis using the metafor package for R software.

RESULTS

Of 655 identified articles, 627 were excluded and 28 articles fully assessed, including 14 comparative studies, 8 case series and 6 case reports. Extracted data included intraoperative variables and postoperative outcome parameters. The predefined inclusion criteria were met by 14 comparative studies, and 371 patients were pooled in the meta-analysis. Hybrid laparoscopic pacreatoduodenectomy was associated with significantly longer operative time (I² 0%, p = 0,01, Mean HPD 494,6 min, Mean OPD 421,6 min, WMD 67 min, 95% CI 14-120 min). For all other postoperative outcome parameters, no statistically significant differences were found. A nonsignificant reduction in intraoperative transfusion rate (I² 20%, p = 0,2, proportion HPD 2%, proportion OPD 1,6%, OR 0,44, 95% CI 0,16-1,27) and blood loss (I² 95%, p = 0,1, Mean HPD 397,2 ml, Mean OPD 1017,8 ml, MD - 601 ml, 95% CI - 1311-108) was observed for hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in comparison to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates significantly increased operation time for hybrid laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy. Intraoperative variables as well as postoperative parameters and major morbidity were comparable for both techniques. Overall results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the hybrid technique as a safe procedure in high-volume centers offering aspects of a safe transition to fully laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy without radical lymphadenectomy: Results of coarsened exact matching analysis using national database systems

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has recently been covered under Japan's insurance system for patients not requiring lymph node dissection. Only high-volume hospitals that meet specific criteria are permitted to perform laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy outcomes with lymph node dissection have been described previously, procedures performed without lymph node dissection have not been compared using a nationwide database. This study aimed to review the results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and compare them to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using records from a nationwide database.

METHODS

We collected patient demographic and medical data of 2900 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (laparoscopic, n = 162; open, n = 2738) without lymph node dissection between 2016 and 2018 from the National Clinical Database in Japan. Coarsened exact matching was used to match patients in the laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy groups.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was not observed in the laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy group. The rate of conversion to an open procedure was 6.8% (11 cases). After 1:1 matching, we obtained 141 pairs of patients for comparison. The mortality rate was comparable in the laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy groups (0.0% vs 0.7%, respectively; P = 1.00). The laparoscopic approach showed more favorable results in terms of median blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula formation and complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy could be introduced successfully, and the outcomes achieved by the institutions included in our study were comparable to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Versus Conventional Open Approach for Patients With Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD vs. OPD), we performed a meta-analysis of currently available propensity score matching studies and large-scale retrospective cohorts to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD for patients with PDAC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021250395. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, 30-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, overall survival, and long-term survival) were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 10 retrospective studies enrolling a total of 11,535 patients (1,514 and 10,021 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively). The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival time, 1-year survival, 2-year survival, 30-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, POPF, DGE, PPH, and lymph node dissection between the LPD and OPD groups. Nevertheless, compared with the OPD group, LPD resulted in significantly higher rate of R0 resection (OR: 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.40; p = 0.005), longer operative time (WMD: 60.01 min; 95% CI 23.23-96.79; p = 0.001), lower Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III rate (p = 0.02), less blood loss (WMD: -96.49 ml; 95% CI -165.14 to -27.83; p = 0.006), lower overall morbidity rate (OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; p = 0.002), shorter LOS (MD = -2.73; 95% CI -4.44 to -1.03; p = 0.002), higher 4-year survival time (p = 0.04), 5-year survival time (p = 0.001), and earlier time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (OR: -10.86; 95% CI -19.42 to -2.30; p = 0.01).

Conclusions

LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD for patients with PDAC, and compared with OPD, LPD seemed to provide a similar OS.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma showed similar survival: a case-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the oncological benefit of laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for ampullary carcinoma. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological results of these two approaches.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 103 patients who underwent PD for ampullary carcinoma, including 31 LPD and 72 OPD, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched on a 1:2 basis for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, and preoperative biliary drainage. Short- and long-term outcomes of LPD and OPD were compared.

RESULTS

The 31 LPD were matched (1:2) to 62 OPD. LPD was associated with a shorter operative time (298 vs. 341 min, p = 0.02) than OPD and similar blood loss (361 vs. 341 mL, p = 0.747), but with more intra- and post-operative transfusions (29 vs. 8%, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 vs. 2%), grades B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (22 vs. 21%), delayed gastric emptying (23 vs. 35%), bleeding (22 vs. 11%), Clavien ≥ III morbidity (22 vs. 19%), or the length of hospital stay (26 vs. 21 days) between LPD and OPD, respectively, but there were more reinterventions (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.009). Pathological characteristics were similar for tumor size (21 vs. 22 mm), well differentiated tumors (41 vs. 38%), the number of harvested (23 vs. 26) or invaded lymph nodes (48 vs. 52%), R0 resection (84 vs. 90%), and other subtypes (T1/2, T3/4, phenotype). With a comparable mean follow-up (41 vs. 37 months, p = 0.59), there was no difference in 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (p = 0.725) or recurrence-free survival (p = 0.155) which were (93, 74, 67% vs. 97, 79, 76%) and (85, 58, 58% vs. 90, 73, 73%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a similar long-term oncological results between LPD and OPD for ampullary carcinoma. However, the higher morbidity observed with LPD compared to OPD, restricting its use to experienced centers.

Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnamese patients with periampullary of Vater malignancies: A single-institution prospective study

Introduction

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically complex technique, that is being used to treat periampullary malignancy. We provide our experience with laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) with statistics on the outcomes of periampullary cancer patients.

Material and method

Thirty patients underwent surgery between June 1, 2016 and May 30, 2020, with 21 undergoing classical PD and 9 undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Prospectively gathered data on surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results are given.

Results

The median operative time was 277.5 min (range, 258.7–330 min), and the median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 319.5 mL (range, 241.2–425 mL). The rate of conversion to OPD, surgical reintervention, and mortality was 20%, 13.3%, and 10% respectively. Cumulative surgery-related morbidity was 33.4%, including bleeding (n = 4), severe POPF (n = 4), biliary fistula (n = 1), DGE (n = 2), and intestinal obstruction (n = 1). Pathologic diagnoses were AoV cancer (n = 23), distal CBD cancer (n = 4), PDAC (n = 2), and AoV NET (n = 1). The mean survival time of the LAPD group was 29.9 months. The long-term survival time of the N0 group was 36.8 months, which was significantly longer than that of the N1 group. The long-term survival times of stages I–B, II-A, and II-B were 36.9, 26.5, and 15.7 months, respectively (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

LAPD has a high rate of conversion to OPD, morbidity, and mortality. However, LPD is feasible technique for highly selected patients. Lymph node metastasis and stage of disease are the risk factors for long-term survival.

•

Most of tumours that develop in the periampullary of the Vater region are malignant.

•

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains the most challenging procedure in laparoscopic surgery with the rate of conversion to OPD, morbility, and mortality was 0–40%, 3.8%–50%, and 1.6%–8%, respectively.

•

In the first 30 cases, LAPD has a high rate of complications, conversion to OPD, and mortality. However, LAPD is feasible method and can provide acceptable oncological results with careful patient selection.

•

Experience, learning curve, and high-volume centre might have influenced the results.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After Learning Curve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Center Studies

Background: Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a safe and feasible treatment compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), surgeons need a relatively long training time to become technically proficient in this complex procedure. In addition, the incidence of complications and mortality of LPD will be significantly higher than that of OPD in the initial stage. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD after learning curve based on eligible large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Only clinical studies reporting more than 40 cases for LPD were included. Data on operative times, blood loss, and 90-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥III complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size) were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Overall, the final analysis included 13 retrospective cohorts and one RCT comprising 2,702 patients (LPD: 1,040, OPD: 1,662). It seems that LPD has longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD): 74.07; 95% CI: 39.87-108.26; p < 0.0001). However, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate (odds ratio (OR): 1.43; 95% CI: 1.10-1.85; p = 0.008), lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.22-0.56; p < 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD: -197.54 ml; 95% CI -251.39 to -143.70; p < 0.00001), lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.43-0.78; p = 0.0004), and shorter LOS (WMD: -2.30 day; 95% CI -3.27 to -1.32; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE, PPH, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size between LPD and OPD. Conclusion: Comparative studies indicate that after the learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD. In addition, LPD provides less blood loss, blood transfusion, wound infection, and shorter hospital stays when compared with OPD.

The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

BACKGROUND

Although early series focused on benign disease, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) might be particularly suited for malignancy. Unlike their predecessors, fellowship-trained (FT) Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary (HPB) surgeons usually have equal skills in approaching peri-ampullary tumors (PT) either openly or via minimally invasive (MI) techniques.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed a MI-HPB-FT surgeon's 10-year experience with PD. A sub-analysis of malignant PT was also done (MIPD-PT vs. OPD-PT). The primary endpoint was to assess postoperative mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints included operative parameters, length of hospital stay, and survival analysis. Moreover, we addressed practice pattern changes for a surgeon straight out of training with no previous experience of independent surgery.

RESULTS

From December 2007-February 2018, one MI-HPB-FT performed a total of 100 PDs, including 57 MIPDs and 43 open PDs (OPDs). In both groups, over 70% of PDs were undertaken for malignancy. Eight patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal cancer (PDC) were in the OPD-PT group (as compared to only 2 in the MIPD-PT group) (p = 0.07). Estimated mean blood loss and length of stay were less in the MIPD-PT group (345 mL and 12 days) as compared to the OPD-PT group (971 mL and 16 days), p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively. However, the mean operative time was longer for the MIPD-PT (456 min) as compared to the OPD-PT (371 min), p < 0.001. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 2.6%/5.1% after MIPD-PT compared to 0%/3.2% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 1. Overall 30-/90-day morbidity rates were similar at 41.0%/43.6% after MIPD-PT and 35.5%/41.9% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 0.8 and 1. Complete resection (R0) rates were not statistically different, 97.4% after MIPD-PT compared to 87.0% after OPD-PT (p = 0.2). After MIPD and OPD for malignant PT, overall 1, 3 and 5-year survival rates, and median survival were 82.5%, 59.6% and 46.3% and 38 months as compared to 52.5%, 15.7% and 10.5% and 13 months, respectively (p = 0.01). In the MIDP-PT group, recurrence free survival (RFS) at 1, 3 and 5 years and median RFS were 69.1%, 41.9% and 33.5% and 26 months as compared to 50.4%, 6.3% and 6.3% and 13 months, in the OPD-PT group, respectively (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

FT HPB Surgeons who begin their practice with the ability to do both MI and OPD may preferentially approach resectable peri-ampullary tumors minimally invasively. This may result in decreased blood loss decreased length of hospital stays. Despite longer operative time, the improved visualization of MI techniques may enable superior R0 rates when compared to historical open controls. Moreover, combined with quicker initiation of adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatments, this may eventually result in improved survival.

Adverse Impact of Intraoperative Conversion on the Postoperative Course Following Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Nomogram and a predictive model for postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodectomy

To develop a predictive model and a nomogram for predicting postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). A total of 409 LPD patients that underwent LPD by the same surgical team between January 2014 and December 2020 were included as the training cohort. The preoperative data of patients were statistically compared and analyzed for exploring factors correlated with postoperative hemorrhage. The predictive model was developed by multivariate logistic regression and stepwise (stepAIC) selection. A nomogram based on the predictive model was developed. The discriminatory ability of the predictive model was validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and leave-one-out method. The statistical analysis was performed using R 3.5.1 (www.r-project.org). The predictive model including the risk-associated factors of postoperative hemorrhage was as follows: 2.695843 − 0.63056 × (Jaundice = 1) − 1.08368 × (DM = 1) − 2.10445 × (Hepatitis = 1) + 1.152354 × (Pancreatic tumor = 1) + 1.071354 × (Bile duct tumor = 1) − 0.01185 × CA125 − 0.04929 × TT − 0.08826 × APTT + 26.03383 × INR − 1.9442 × PT + 1.979563 × WBC − 2.26868 × NEU − 2.0789 × LYM − 0.02038 × CREA + 0.00459 × AST. A practical nomogram based on the model was obtained. The internal validation of ROC curve was statistically significant (AUC = 0.7758). The validation by leave-one-out method showed that the accuracy of the model and the F measure was 0.887 and 0.939, respectively. The predictive model and nomogram based on the preoperative data of patients undergoing LPD can be useful for predicting the risk degree of postoperative hemorrhage.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The benefit and safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) for the treatment of pancreatic or periampullary tumours remain controversial. Studies have shown that the learning curve plays an important role in LPD, yet there are no randomised studies on LPD after the surgeons have surmounted the learning curve. The aim of this trial was to compare the outcomes of open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with those of LPD, when performed by experienced surgeons.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done in 14 Chinese medical centres, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either LPD or OPD. Randomisation was centralised via a computer-generated system that used a block size of four. The patients and surgeons were unmasked to study group, whereas the data collectors, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked. LPD and OPD were performed by experienced surgeons who had already done at least 104 LPD operations. The primary outcome was the postoperative length of stay. The criteria for discharge were based on functional recovery, and analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (ie, including patients who had a pancreatoduodenectomy regardless of whether the operation was the one they were assigned to). This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03138213.

FINDINGS

Between May 18, 2018, and Dec 19, 2019, we assessed 762 patients for eligibility, of whom 656 were randomly assigned to either the LPD group (n=328) or the OPD group (n=328). 31 patients in each group were excluded and 80 patients crossed over (33 from LPD to OPD, 47 from OPD to LPD). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (297 patients in the LPD group and 297 patients in the OPD group), the postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter for patients in the LPD group than for patients in the OPD group (median 15·0 days [95% CI 14·0-16·0] vs 16·0 days [15·0-17·0]; p=0·02). 90-day mortality was similar in both groups (five [2%] of 297 patients in the LPD group vs six [2%] of 297 in the OPD group, risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·26-2·70]; p=0·76). The incidence rate of serious postoperative morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade of at least 3) was not significantly different in the two groups (85 [29%] of 297 patients in the LPD group vs 69 [23%] of 297 patients in OPD group, RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·94-1·62]; p=0·13). The comprehensive complication index score was not significantly different between the two groups (median score 8·7 [IQR 0·0-26·2] vs 0·0 [0·0-20·9]; p=0·06).

INTERPRETATION

In highly experienced hands, LPD is a safe and feasible procedure. It was associated with a shorter length of stay and similar short-term morbidity and mortality rates to OPD. Nonetheless, the clinical benefit of LPD compared with OPD was marginal despite extensive procedural expertise. Future research should focus on identifying the populations that will benefit from LPD.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China and Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China.

Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes following laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy after learning curve in the past 10 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years.

Methods

A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph node dissection).

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD.

The outcome of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is improved with patient selection and the learning curve

BACKGROUND

In our first experience, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) was associated with higher morbidity than open PD. Since, the surgical technique has been improved and LPD was avoided in some patients at very high risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We provide our most recent results.

METHOD

Between 2011 and 2018, 130 LPD were performed and divided into 3 consecutive periods based on CUSUM analysis and compared: first period (n = 43), second period (n = 43), and third period (n = 44).

RESULTS

In the third period of this study, LPD was more frequently performed in women (46%, 39%, 59%, p = 0.21) on dilated Wirsung duct > 3 mm (40%, 44%, 57%; p = 0.54). Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) became the primary indication (12%, 39%, 34%; p = 0.037) compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35%, 16%, 16%; p = 0.004). Malignant ampulloma re-increased during the third period (30%, 9%, 20%; p = 0.052) with the amelioration of surgical technique. The operative time increased during the second period and decreased during the third period (330, 345, 270; p < 0.001) with less blood loss (300, 200, 125; p < 0.001). All complications decreased, including POPF grades B/C (44%, 28%, 20%; p = 0.017), bleeding (28%, 21%, 14%; p = 0.26), Clavien-Dindo III-IV (40%, 33%, 16%; p = 0.013), re-interventions (19%, 14%, 9%; p = 0.43), and the hospital stay (26, 19, 18; p = 0.045). Less patients with similar-sized adenocarcinoma were operated during the second period (70%, 33%, 59%; p = 0.002) with more harvested lymph nodes in the third period (21,19, 25; p = 0.031) and higher R0 resection (70%, 79%, 84%; p = 0.5). On multivariate analysis the protective factors against POPF of grades B/C were pancreatic adenocarcinoma and invasive IPMN, BMI < 22.5 kg/m², and patients operated in the third period.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the outcome of LPD significantly improves with the learning curve and patient selection. For safe implementation and during the early learning period, LPD should be indicated in patients at lower risk of POPF.

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.

Post-operative procalcitonin and C-reactive protein predict pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) is a serious complication following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study aimed to determine if C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) serum levels could be used as early biomarkers to predict CRPF after LPD.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we collected peri-operative data of patients who underwent LPD between January 2019 and November 2019. We compared serum levels of white blood cells (WBC), CRP, and PCT on post-operative days (POD) 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between the CRPF and non-CRPF groups and analyzed the predictive risk factors for CRPF.

RESULTS

Among the 186 patients included in this study, 18 patients (9.7%) developed CRPF, including 15 and 3 patients with grade B and C fistulas, respectively. The mean WBC, CRP, and PCT levels were higher on most PODs in the CRPF group compared to the non-CRPF group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that CRP levels on POD 2, 5, and 7 can predict CRPF development after LPD, with the area under the curve (AUC) value reaching the highest level on POD 2 (AUC 0.794). PCT levels on POD 2, 3, 5, and 7 were highly predictive of CRPF after LPD. The highest AUC value was achieved on POD 3 [PCT > 2.10 ng/ml (AUC 0.951; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 92.9%, P < 0.001)].

CONCLUSIONS

Both CRP and PCT levels can be used to predict CRPF development after LPD, with PCT having a higher predictive value.

Does minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increase the chance of a textbook oncologic outcome?

BACKGROUND

Textbook oncologic outcome has been described in an effort to improve upon traditional outcomes defining care after pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. We sought to examine whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increased the likelihood of an optimal textbook oncologic outcome.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2010 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as R0 resection with American Joint Committee on Cancer compliant lymphadenectomy, no prolonged duration of stay, no 30-day readmission/mortality, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching was employed to evaluate adjusted rates of textbook oncologic outcome, in addition to overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 12,854 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 48.3% were female, and the median patient age was 66 years; 87.5% underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 12.5% underwent whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. After propensity score matching, there were no noted differences in the likelihood of R0 resection, adequate lymphadenectomy, nonprolonged duration of stay, no readmission, no 30-day mortality, adjuvant chemotherapy, or textbook oncologic outcome among open pancreaticoduodenectomy versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (P > .05). Textbook oncologic outcome was associated with an improved median overall survival (negative textbook oncologic outcome: 21.3 months vs positive textbook oncologic outcome: 27.6 months, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although textbook oncologic outcome was associated with a survival advantage, it was only achieved in 1 in 4 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. Achievement of textbook oncologic outcome was equivalent among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching.