Early National Experience with Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base

Contemporary Nationwide Assessment of Resource Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Open and Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background: While minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has historically demonstrated benefits over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), recent advances in perioperative care and surgical techniques may have impacted the relative advantages of these two approaches. This contemporary analysis examines national trends to assess potential differences in resource utilization metrics along with perioperative outcomes between the two approaches. Methods: We analyzed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for cancer patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies from 2016 through 2020. We compared socio-demographics, length of stay (LOS), total charges, and perioperative complications between MIPD and OPD. Results: In this observational study, MIPD was associated with lower total charges ($97,470 vs $126,586), shorter LOS (5.05 vs 7.37 days), and lower odds of perioperative complications (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.18-1.65) compared to OPD. While total charges increased similarly in both groups over time, a declining trend in LOS was observed for OPD (11.49 to 10.36 days). Non-white race and private/other insurance correlated with longer stays, higher charges, and more complications regardless of surgical approach. Conclusions: Despite the gradual improvements in LOS observed with OPD, MIPD demonstrated advantages in resource utilization metrics, indicating potential for reduced healthcare utilization and costs compared to the open surgical approach during the study period. Continued prospective investigation is warranted to comprehensively evaluate MIPD's value proposition.

Complexity and Experience Grading to Guide Patient Selection for Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: An International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Consensus

OBJECTIVE

To develop a universally accepted complexity and experience grading system to guide the safe implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

BACKGROUND

Despite the perceived advantages of MIPD, its global adoption has been slow due to the inherent complexity of the procedure and challenges to acquiring surgical experience. Its wider adoption must be undertaken with an emphasis on appropriate patient selection according to adequate surgeon and center experience.

METHODS

The International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) developed a complexity and experience grading system to guide patient selection for MIPD based on an evidence-based review and a series of discussions.

RESULTS

The ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for MIPD is subclassified into patient-related risk factors and provider experience-related variables. The patient-related risk factors include anatomic (main pancreatic and common bile duct diameters), tumor-specific (vascular contact), and conditional (obesity and previous complicated upper abdominal surgery/disease) factors, all incorporated in an A-B-C classification, graded as no, a single, and multiple risk factors. The surgeon and center experience-related variables include surgeon total MIPD experience (cutoffs 40 and 80) and center annual MIPD volume (cutoffs 10 and 30), all also incorporated in an A-B-C classification.

CONCLUSIONS

This ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for robotic and laparoscopic MIPD may enable surgeons to optimally select patients after duly considering specific risk factors known to influence the complexity of the procedure. This grading system will likely allow for a thoughtful and stepwise implementation of MIPD and facilitate a fair comparison of outcomes between centers and countries.

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.

Achievement of international benchmark outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low volume country

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increase in the utilisation of the robotic platform to perform minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in high volume centres, with the goal of reducing morbidity and improving patient outcomes. This study reports the successful implementation of a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) programme in the relatively low volume setting of Australia, measured against established, internationally accepted benchmarks for low-risk open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database for consecutive RPD at two Brisbane hospitals was performed, comparing data to internationally established benchmarks for low-risk OPD. A structured RPD programme was implemented by two surgeons across a study period spanning May 2017 to December 2023.

RESULTS

Over the study period, seventy-two consecutive RPDs were performed, with 79 % for malignancy. Perioperative outcomes for transfusions, conversion rate, postoperative fistula rate, morbidity, mortality and oncological outcomes were all within established benchmark cutoffs for low-risk open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), although operative time exceeded the benchmark value by 0.7hrs.

CONCLUSION

A carefully implemented RPD programme in the low volume Australian setting is feasible, with high quality outcomes achievable when compared to established benchmarks for low-risk OPD and to reported RPD series published by high volume pioneering centres.

Current landscape of minimally invasive pancreatectomy for neoplasms: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate recent minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) trends for neoplastic disease and compare perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open (OS) or MIP (laparoscopic-LS or robotic-RS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or non-pancreati-coduodenectomy resections (non-PD) were identified from PINC AI Healthcare Database. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

OS was the predominant approach for PD (87.8%); MIP was more common in non-PD (48.5%) than PD with a substantial RS uptake (11.7%-29.9%). In PDs, outcomes were similar except OS had a longer length of stay (LOS) and lower costs. In non-PDs, MIP patients were less likely to have prolonged LOS, intensive care unit admission, and overall complications than OS. Conversion to OS was lower in the RS approach than LS in PD and non-PD.

CONCLUSIONS

MIP for non-PD has become the most common operative approach with improved outcomes; MIP-PD has flat adoption and similar outcomes to OS. Robotics facilitates MIP (PD and non-PD) completion through fewer conversions to open surgery (OS).

Network Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is being increasingly adopted despite the lack of hard evidence to support its utilisation. With recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with robotic or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD or LPD), we undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing all 3 approaches to evaluate comparative outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted up to May 2024 and relevant RCTs were identified. A random-effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted for primary outcomes, followed by a Bayesian NMA of length of stay (LOS), duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and pancreas resection-related outcomes.

Results

Seven RCTs involving 1336 patients were included, 5 investigating LPD compared with OPD and 2 RPD to OPD. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated that LPD was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD], -1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.33 to -0.45) and lower intraoperative blood loss compared with OPD (MD, -131; 95% CI, -146 to -117). However, LPD was associated with significantly longer operative duration (MD, 39.5; 95% CI, 34-45). TSA confirmed the robustness of the positive and negative findings on pairwise meta-analysis. In comparison, there were no significant differences between RPD and OPD in pairwise meta-analysis, which could not be confirmed by TSA. Network meta-analysis tended to favour LPD in most outcome parameters including LOS, duration of surgery, and pancreas resection-related outcomes.

Conclusions

The current RCT evidence suggests potential better outcomes in LPD in comparison with RPD and OPD. However, few studies demonstrated robust statistical significance in outcome measures, suggesting an underpowered evidence base and possible selection bias. Hence, with current equivocal data, there is a need for ongoing RCTs to validate the role of minimally invasive approaches in PD.

Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), when selectively utilized, has been shown to hasten recovery with outcomes comparable to open approaches, but access may not be equitable. This study explored variation in utilization of MIPS for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with a primary pancreatic neoplasm from 2010 to 2020. Study participants had diagnoses of clinical or pathologic stage 1-3 disease and received curative-intent surgery. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between surgical approach and patient and disease factors.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 73,137 patients: 51,408 underwent open surgery and 21,729 received MIPS. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was associated with reduced odds of MIPS (AOR 0.88; p = 0.02), while older age (AOR 1.17; p = 0.01), later year of diagnosis (AOR 1.57; p < 0.001), and private insurance coverage (AOR 1.30; p = 0.05) were associated with increased odds. When patients with adenocarcinoma were analyzed in isolation, disparities in MIPS utilization persisted even when controlling for disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors like age, race, and insurance coverage appear to vary in the utilization of MIPS technologies for the treatment of pancreatic malignancy. Addressing variation with robust mixed methods approaches in the future is proposed to incorporate prospective interventions with highly annotated outcomes for additional study.

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

Objective

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Operative Time, Oncological Outcomes, Bleeding, Morbidity, and Mortality

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

Challenge in optimizing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy including nerve plexus hanging maneuver: a Japanese single center experience of 76 cases

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is technically demanding, and 20-50 cases are required to surpass the learning curve. This study aimed to show our experience of 76 cases from the introduction of RPD and report the changes in surgical results owing to the accumulation of cases and optimization of surgical techniques.

METHODS

A total of 76 patients who underwent RPD between November 2009 and May 2023 at the Fujita Health University Hospital were divided into three groups: competency (n = 23, Nov 2009-Mar 2020), proficiency (n = 31, Apr 2020-Jun 2022), and mastery (n = 22, Jul 2022-May 2023) phases. In the mastery phase, for the education of new surgeons and maintenance of surgical quality, optimization of the procedure, including hanging maneuver with or without stapling transection of the retropancreatic tissue was implemented. The surgical outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean operation time decreased over time despite of the participation of newly started operators in mastery phase [competency: 921.5 min (IQR 775-996 min) vs. proficiency: 802.8 min (IQR 715-887 min) vs. mastery: 609.2 min (IQR 514-699 min), p < 0.001]. Additionally, Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade IIIa complications decreased from 52.2% in competency phase to 35.5% and 9.1% in proficiency and mastery phases, respectively (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Operation time and major complications decreased along the learning curve from the introduction of RPD. In addition, optimization of the procedure, including hanging maneuver of the retropancreatic tissue seemed to be effective in reducing operation time and educating new RPD surgeons.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater in a medium-volume center: a propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a medium-volume medical center.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent OPD or LPD for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater (VPC) between January 2017 and June 2022 were acquired retrospectively. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the groups. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Cox regression analysis was used to explore the independent risk factors for DFS.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients with pathologically diagnosed VPC were included. After 1:1 matching, there were 23 cases each in the OPD and LPD groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median DFS in the OPD and LPD groups was identical (16.0 months vs 16.0 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that low levels of alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, positive surgical margin, and lymph node enlargement were independent risk factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

LPD in medium-volume centers with acceptable technical conditions may approach or even achieve the efficacy of LPD in large-volume centers.

The Role of C-reactive Protein and Procalcitonin in Predicting the Occurrence of Pancreatic Fistula in Patients who Underwent Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Retrospective Study

The occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a significant concern, yet there is currently a lack of consensus on reliable predictive methods for this complication. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) values and their reliability in early predicting the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) following LPD.A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 120 patients who had LPD between September 2019 and December 2021. Preoperative assessment data, standard patients' demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, intra- and postoperative evaluation, as well as postoperative laboratory values on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 7, including white blood cells (WBCs), CRP, and PCT, were prospectively recorded on a dedicated database. Two clinicians separately collected and cross-checked all of the data.Among 120 patients [77 men (64%), 43 women (36%], CRPF occurred in 15 patients (11 grade B and 4 grade C fistulas). The incidence rate of CRPF was 12.3%. A comparison of the median values of WBCs, PCT, and CRP across the two groups revealed that the CRPF group had higher values on most PODs than the non-CRPF group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and cutoff values. It was discovered that POD 3 has the most accurate and significant values for WBCs, CRP, and PCT. According to the ROC plots, the AUC for WBCs was 0.842, whereas the AUC for PCT was 0.909. As for CRP, the AUC was 0.941 (95% CI 0.899-0.983, p < 0.01) with a cutoff value of 203.45, indicating a sensitivity of 93.3% and specificity of 91.4%.Both CRP and PCT can be used to predict the early onset of CRPF following LPD, with CRP being slightly superior on POD 3.

Impact of Unplanned Intra-Operative Conversions on Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is fraught with the risk of complication-related deaths (LEOPARD-2), a significant volume-outcome relationship and a long learning curve. With rates of conversion for MIPD approaching 40%, the impact of these on overall patient outcomes, especially, when unplanned, are yet to be fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare peri-operative outcomes of (unplanned) converted MIPD against both successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD.

METHODS

A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to judge the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using pooled estimates, derived using random effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 20,267 patients were included in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated (unplanned) converted MIPD were associated with an increased 30-day (RR 2.83, CI 1.62- 4.93, p = 0.0002, I2 = 0%) and 90-day (RR 1.81, CI 1.16- 2.82, p = 0.009, I2 = 28%) mortality and overall morbidity (RR 1.41, CI 1.09; 1.82, p = 0.0087, I2 = 82%) compared to successfully completed MIPD. Patients undergoing (unplanned) converted MIPD experienced significantly higher 30-day mortality (RR 3.97, CI 2.07; 7.65, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), pancreatic fistula (RR 1.65, CI 1.22- 2.23, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and re-exploration rates (RR 1.96, CI 1.17- 3.28, p = 0.01, I2 = 37%) compared upfront open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient outcomes are significantly compromised following unplanned intraoperative conversions of MIPD when compared to successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD. These findings stress the need for objective evidence-based guidelines for patient selection for MIPD.

Changing Practice Patterns and Improving Survival for Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Over the last two decades, there have been many reported advances in the clinical management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We sought to evaluate changes in survival for patients diagnosed with PDAC between 2004 and 2017. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with PDAC between 2004 and 2017. There were 55,401 patients who underwent surgery and 109,477 patients who underwent non-surgical treatment for PDAC between 2004 and 2017. Patients were categorized into four groups by year of diagnosis. Median survival improved from 15.5 months to 25.3 months for patients treated with surgery between the years 2016 and 2017 compared with between 2004 and 2007 (p < 0.001). Median survival improved from 7.2 months to 10.1 months for patients treated without surgery during the same years (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio for death was estimated to multiply by 0.975 per year for patients treated with surgery and 0.959 per year for patients treated without surgery (p < 0.001). This increase in survival in the setting of evolving care validates continued efforts aimed at improving survival for patients with this devastating disease.

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.

Learning curves in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a different experience for each generation

BACKGROUND

Learning curves of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are mostly based on 'self-taught' surgeons who acquired sufficient proficiency largely through self-teaching. No learning curves have been investigated for 'trained' surgeons who received training and built on the experience of the 'self-taught' surgeons. This study compared the learning curves and outcome of LDP between 'self-taught' and 'trained' surgeons in terms of feasibility and proficiency using short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with benign or malignant disease of the left pancreas who underwent LDP by four 'self-taught' and four 'trained' surgeons between 1997 and 2019 were collected, starting from the first patient operated by a contributing surgeon. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analyses were performed to determine phase-1 feasibility (operative time) and phase-2 proficiency (major complications) learning curves. Outcomes were compared based on the inflection points of the learning curves.

RESULTS

The inflection points for the feasibility and proficiency learning curves were 24 and 36 procedures for 'trained' surgeons compared to 64 and 85 procedures for 'self-taught' surgeons, respectively. In 'trained' surgeons, operative time was reduced after completion of the learning curves (230.5-203 min, P= 0.028). In 'self-taught' surgeons, operative time (240-195 min, P ≤0.001), major complications (20.6-7.8%, P= 0.008), and length of hospital stay (9-5 days, P ≤0.001) reduced after completion of the learning curves.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective international cohort study showed that the feasibility and proficiency learning curves for LDP of 'trained' surgeons were at least halved as compared to 'self-taught' surgeons.

External pancreatic ductal stenting in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: How to do it?

It has been shown that external pancreatic ductal stenting (EPDS) can reduce the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Although studies have described EPDS in open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), EPDS in minimally invasive PD has not been reported yet. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe the technique of EPDS in minimally invasive PD. The procedure was performed either laparoscopically or using a robot. Once PD was completed, key steps included triple enterotomy, threading of silk-suture through all enterotomies and exteriorization, completing posterior layer of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), railroading stent through preplaced silk-suture, intubation of stent into the pancreatic duct, completion of PJ, followed by hepaticojejunostomy and parietalization of jejunum at the stent exit site. EPDS in PD through a minimally invasive approach can be performed safely in selected cases with either a small-sized pancreatic duct or a soft pancreas.

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.

A Blumgart Anastomosis-Based Half-Invagination Pancreaticoenterostomy with Better Applicability to Laparoscopy and Lower Incidence of Pancreatic Leakage

Background

The Blumgart anastomosis (BA) is one of the safest anastomoses for pancreatic stump reconstruction. The incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and postoperative complications is low. However, how to make laparoscopic pancreaticoenterostomy easier and safer is still a topic to be discussed.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from April 2014 to December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Half-invagination anastomosis was performed in 20 cases (HI group), and the Cattell-Warren anastomosis was carried out in 26 cases (CW group). The amount of intraoperative bleeding, operation time, and postoperative catheterization time in the HI group was significantly less than those in the CW group. Besides, the number of patients at the Clavien-Dindo grade III and above in the HI group was significantly less than that in the control group. Moreover, the incidence of POPF in the HI group was significantly lower than that in the CW group. Furthermore, fistula risk score (FRS) analysis showed that there was no high-risk group, and the highest risk in the medium-risk group was pancreatic leakage. In addition, the incidence of pancreatic leakage in the HI group and CW group was 7.7% and 46.67%, respectively, while the incidence of pancreatic leakage in the HI group was significantly lower than that in the CW group.

Conclusions

The half-invagination pancreaticoenterostomy based on the Blumgart anastomosis should have good applicability under laparoscopy and could effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic leakage.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.

METHODS

An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

Postoperative complications and short-term prognosis of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been accepted worldwide for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), it is a very technical and challenging procedure. Also, it is unclear whether LPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study summarized the experience and efficacy of LPD for treating PDA in our medical center.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDA admitted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University from October 2019 and January 2021. Patients received either LPD or OPD. Clinical outcomes (operation time, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative hemorrhage), postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes were compared. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Among the PDA patients, 101 patients underwent surgical treatment, 4 patients converted from LPD to OPD, and 7 of them received conservative treatment. Forty-six patients were cured of LPD, and 1 of them died shortly after the operation. Moreover, 44 patients received OPD, and there were 2 postoperative deaths. There were significant differences in the location of the operation time, duration of anesthesia, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal infections, and postoperative pneumonia between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LPD was an independent factor negatively correlated with the incidence of pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 0.072, 95%CI: 0.016-0.326, p = 0.001) and abdominal infection (RR = 0.182, 95%CI: 0.047-0.709, p = 0.014). Also, there were no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.60-3.53, p = 0.40) and PFS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32, p = 0.37) at 12 months between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD could be efficacy and feasible for managing selected PDA patients. Also, LPD has a better effect in reducing postoperative pneumonia and abdominal infection compared 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.

The relationship of hospital and surgeon volume indicators and post-operative outcomes in pancreatic surgery: a systematic literature review, meta-analysis and guidance for valid outcome assessment

BACKGROUND

Available evidence on the volume-outcome relationship after pancreatic surgery is limited due to the narrow focus of interventions, volume indicators and outcomes considered as well as due to methodological differences of the included studies. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship following pancreatic surgery following strict study selection and quality criteria, to identify aspects of methodological variation and to define a set of key methodological indicators to consider when aiming for comparable and valid outcome assessment.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies on the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery published between the years 2000-2018. Following a double-screening process, data extraction, quality appraisal, and subgroup analysis, results of included studies were stratified and pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Consistent associations were found between high hospital volume and both postoperative mortality (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.29-0.44) and major complications (OR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.94). A significant decrease in the odds ratio was also found for high surgeon volume and postoperative mortality (OR 0.29, 95%CI: 0.22-0.37).

DISCUSSION

Our meta-analysis confirms a positive effect for both hospital and surgeon volume indicators for pancreatic surgery. Further harmonization (e.g. surgery types, volume cut-offs/definition, case-mix adjustment, reported outcomes) are recommended for future empirical studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches. Our study aimed to determine the outcomes of LPD in the elderly patients, by performing a systematic review and a meta-analysis of relevant studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify all studies that compared laparoscopic vs. open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Results: Five retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. Overall, 90-day mortality rates were significantly decreased after LPD in elderly patients compared with open approaches (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.32−0.96; p = 0.037, I2 = 0%). The laparoscopic approach had similar mortality rate at 30-day, readmission rate in hospital, Clavien−Dindo complications, pancreatic fistula grade B/C, complete resection rate, reoperation for complications and blood loss as the open approach. Additionally, comparing with younger patients (<70 years old), no significant differences were seen in elderly cohort patients regarding mortality rate at 90 days, readmission rate to hospital, and complication rate. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, we identify that LPD in elderly is a safe procedure, with significantly lower 90-day mortality rates when compared with the open approach. Our results should be considered with caution, considering the retrospective analyses of the included studies; larger prospective studies are required.

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.

Incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after using a defined pancreaticojejunostomy technique for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective multicenter study on 1033 patients

OBJECTIVE

This prospective multicenter study aimed to study the incidence of postoperative pancreatice fistula using a defined technique of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

BACKGROUND

PJ is a technically challenging and time-consuming procedure in LPD. Up to now, only a few small sample size studies have been reported on various PJ techniques in LPD, none of which has widely been accepted by surgeons.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LPD using a defined technique of PJ at four institutions in China between January 2017 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Of 1045 patients, after excluding 12 patients (1.2%) due to conversion to open surgery, 1033 patients were analysed. The males comprised of 57.12% (590/1033), and females 42.88% (443/1033), with a mean age of 59.00 years. The mean ± s.d. operation time was (270.2 ± 101.8) min. The median time for PJ was 24min (IQR = 20.0-30.0). The overall incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 12.6%, including 67 patients (6.5%) with Grade A biochemical leak, 50 patients (4.8%) with Grade B, and 13 patients (1.3%) with Grade C pancreatic fistulas. The overall incidence of major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥3) was 6.3% and the 30-day mortality was 2.8%.

CONCLUSION

The pancreaticojejunostomy technique for LPD was safe, simple and reproduceable with favorable clinical outcomes. However, further validations using high-quality RCTs are still required to confirm the findings of this study.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Determining Hospital Volume Threshold for Safety of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Contemporary Cutpoint Analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend limiting minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) to high-volume centers. However, the definition of high-volume care remains unclear. We aimed to objectively define a minimum number of MIPD performed annually per hospital associated with improved outcomes in a contemporary patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIPD were included from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to identify an MIPD annual hospital volume threshold associated with lower 90-day mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients treated at low-volume (≤ model-identified cutoff) and high-volume (> cutoff) centers.

RESULTS

Among 3079 patients, 141 (5%) died within 90 days. Median hospital volume was 6 (range 1-73) cases/year. After adjustment, increasing hospital volume was associated with decreasing 90-day mortality for up to 19 (95% CI 16-25) cases/year, indicating a threshold of 20 cases/year. Most cases (82%) were done at low-volume (< 20 cases/year) centers. With adjustment, MIPD at low-volume centers was associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 2.7; p = 0.002). Length of stay, positive surgical margins, 30-day readmission, and overall survival were similar. On analysis of the most recent two years (n = 1031), patients at low-volume centers (78.2%) were younger and had less advanced tumors but had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days; p < 0.001) and increased 90-day mortality (7% versus 2%; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The cutpoint analysis identified a threshold of at least 20 MIPD cases/year associated with lower postoperative mortality. This threshold should inform national guidelines and institution-level protocols aimed at facilitating the safe implementation of this complex procedure.

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.

A Consensus Meeting on Expert Recommendations on Operating Specifications for Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Background: With advances in techniques and technologies, laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) has gradually been carried out in major medical centers in China. Its feasibility and safety have been accepted by a group of Chinese surgical experts. Methods: To standardize perioperative management of HCCA by using laparoscopic resectional approach, to ensure safety of the patient with standardized management, improve prognosis of the patient, and enable proper application and refinement of this surgical approach, the expert group on specifications for laparoscopic radical resection of HCCA in China organized a consensus meeting. Results: Laparoscopic radical resection of HCCA is difficult and associated with high risks. Appropriate patients should be carefully selected and this surgical approach should be promoted gradually. The experts met and arrived at 16 recommendations on perioperative management of HCCA by using laparoscopic surgery. There were three recommendations on preoperative diagnosis and evaluation; one recommendation on surgical principles of treatment; one recommendation on indications and contraindications; one recommendation on credentialing, staffing, and equipment; nine recommendations on laparoscopic techniques in different stages of operation; and one recommendation on indications for conversion to open surgery. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery for HCCA is still in the early phase of development. This consensus provides a clinical reference with the aim to promote and to facilitate its further development.

Intraoperative pH Is a Reliable Prognostic Factor for Patients With Periampullary Carcinoma Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy

A reliable prognostic factor for periampullary carcinoma is critical to improve surgical outcomes. Intraoperative acidosis reflects the incidence of intraoperative adverse events and impact the prognosis. In this study, 612 patients with periampullary carcinoma who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were divided into high- and low-pH groups according to the cut-off value of receiver operating characteristic curve (7.34). Through statistical analysis of the difference between the high- and low-pH group, it was found that the low-pH group had worse short-term prognosis than the high pH group, and intraoperative pH was an independent prognostic factor for patients with periampullary carcinoma undergoing PD. In addition, patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy had a more alkaline pH after surgery. This is of great help for early judgment of short-term and even long-term prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer after surgery, and can even guide clinicians to improve prognosis by early adjustment of pH value.

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.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Pancreatic Resection

There is increasing interest in the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatectomy. Prospective data indicate significant advantages for MIS when performed for left-sided pancreatic pathologies and may be deemed as the standard of care. However, there is reluctance in implementing this technique to pancreaticoduodenectomy because of the complexity of the operation and the mixed results from randomized trials. A detailed description of the technical aspects of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy is presented in this article in addition to a summary of the most important prospective and cohort studies. We also provide insights into patient selection and the learning curve of MIS surgery for pancreatectomy.

Implementation of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy at Low and High-volume Centers

BACKGROUND

There is a need to better define the safety of implementing the use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) in order to provide evidence for safe application. The objective of this study was to evaluate the mortality associated with the implementation of MIPD across low and high-volume facilities using the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS

Patients in the NCDB with pancreatic cancer diagnosed from 2010-2016 undergoing MIPD were selected. Cumulative MIPD volume for each facility was calculated from the number of MIPD cases performed each year prior to and including the year of a patient's operation. A random effects logistic regression model was used to examine the adjusted association between log-transformed cumulative MIPD volume and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

After controlling for patient, tumor and facility-related variables, there was decreased 90-day mortality as the cumulative MIPD volume increased (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95; P = 0.009). Average annual open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) volume was independently protective throughout the implementation phase (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P = 0.049). This equates to an average predicted probability of 90-day mortality for the first 5 cumulative MIPD cases of 7.51% at a low-volume facility (5 open PDs per year) versus 4.39% at a high-volume facility (50 open PDs per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the NCDB, 90-day mortality following MIPD decreased with higher cumulative facility MIPD case volume. Although higher cumulative MIPD case volume was associated with reduced 90-day mortality at both low and high-volume facilities, the higher mortality during the implementation of MIPD is magnified at low-volume facilities. This retrospective analysis demonstrates that MIPD can be safely implemented with low mortality at facilities with high-volume open PD programs.

Highs and lows in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is not widely accepted, and its use is controversial. Only correct patient selection and appropriate training of groups experienced in pancreatic surgery and laparoscopy will be able to establish its role and its hypothetical advantages.

METHODS

Out of 138 pancreatic surgeries performed in a two-year period (2017-2019), 23 were laparoscopic PD. We evaluate its efficacy and safety compared to 31 open PD.

RESULTS

There were no cases of B/C pancreatic or biliary fistula, nor any cases of delayed gastric emptying in the laparoscopic group, but hemorrhage required one reoperation. The conversion rate was 21% (five cases): one due to bleeding, and the remainder for non-progression. The converted patients showed no differences compared to those completed by laparoscopy. There were no differences between laparoscopic and open PD in surgical time, postoperative complications, reintervention rate, readmissions or mortality. R0 resection in tumor cases was 85% for laparoscopy and 69% in open surgery without statistical significance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic PD group (eight vs. 15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected group, laparoscopic PD can be safely and effectively performed if carried out by groups who are experts in pancreatic surgery and advanced laparoscopy. The technique has the same postoperative results as open surgery and is oncologically adequate, with less hospital stay. Proper patient selection, a step-by-step program and a lax and early conversion prevents serious operating accidents.

The Current Treatment Paradigm for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Barriers to Therapeutic Efficacy

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis, with a median survival time of 10-12 months. Clinically, these poor outcomes are attributed to several factors, including late stage at the time of diagnosis impeding resectability, as well as multi-drug resistance. Despite the high prevalence of drug-resistant phenotypes, nearly all patients are offered chemotherapy leading to modest improvements in postoperative survival. However, chemotherapy is all too often associated with toxicity, and many patients elect for palliative care. In cases of inoperable disease, cytotoxic therapies are less efficacious but still carry the same risk of serious adverse effects, and clinical outcomes remain particularly poor. Here we discuss the current state of pancreatic cancer therapy, both surgical and medical, and emerging factors limiting the efficacy of both. Combined, this review highlights an unmet clinical need to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the poor therapeutic responses seen in patients with PDAC, in hopes of increasing drug efficacy, extending patient survival, and improving quality of life.

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.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

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.

Nomogram based on albumin and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for predicting postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to identify a preoperative inflammatory marker with the most predictive value for postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We then combined it with other perioperative variables to construct and validate a nomogram for complications after PD.

Methods

A total of 223 patients who received PD from January 2014 to July 2019 at a high-volume (>60 PDs/year) pancreatic centers in China were included in this retrospective study. All of the PDs were performed by the same surgeon who is beyond the learning curve with more than 100 PDs over the previous 3 years before 2014. 15 preoperative inflammatory markers were collected, including neutrophils, lymphocytes, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lactic dehydrogenase. The inflammatory markers' predicting abilities for complications were analyzed by calculating the values of an area under the curve (AUC). The complications included surgical complications (such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage) and medical complications (such as sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, acute heart failure and acute liver failure) in this study. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the perioperative features for independent risk factors for complications after PD. Nomograms with or without the most predictive inflammatory for complications were subsequently developed based on multivariable logistic regression using Akaike information criterion. Nomograms' performance was quantified and compared in terms of calibration and discrimination. We studied the utility of the nomograms using decision curve analysis.

Results

The albumin/ NLR score (ANS) exhibited the highest AUC value (0.616) for predicting postoperative complications. ANS and approach method were identified as independent risk factors for complications. The nomogram with ANS had higher C-index (0.725) and better calibration. The NRI compared between nomograms was 0.160 (95% CI: 0.023-0.296; P=0.022). By decision curve analysis, the model with ANS had higher clinical value.

Conclusions

The ANS is a useful predictor and an independent risk factor for postoperative complications after PD. The nomogram with ANS was constructed with better performance and more clinical benefit for predicting postoperative complications.