Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: current concepts

Effect of differences in vascular anatomy on surgical outcomes of left pancreatectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive left pancreatectomy (MILP) is increasingly performed worldwide, necessitating the need for improved understanding of vascular anatomy during surgery. However, the effect of differences in vascular anatomy on surgical outcomes remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of vascular anatomical variations on surgical outcomes and identify factors that influence open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study involving 123 patients who underwent left pancreatectomy (LP). We analyzed the correlation between vascular anatomical variations, namely, (i) the root of the splenic artery (SpA; types 1 and 2), (ii) the parent artery of the dorsal pancreatic artery, (iii) confluence patterns of the left gastric vein, and (iv) the inferior mesenteric vein, and surgical outcomes. We also performed a risk analysis of prolonged operation time, considering surgery-related factors.

RESULTS

SpA type 2 was only significantly associated with longer operation time (p < 0.01) in LP procedures. In all LP cases, the pancreatic resection line (above the portal vein: odds ratio [OR] 3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69-11.18; p < 0.01), the SpA type (type 2; OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.16-6.94; p = 0.02), and surgery type (MIS; OR 5.24; 95% CI 2.17-14.00; p < 0.001) were independently associated with prolonged operation times. In open-LP cases, high body mass index (> 24 kg/m2; OR 7.24; 95% CI 1.89-36.34; p < 0.01), tumor location (pancreatic body; OR 6.89; 95% CI 1.79-33.79; p < 0.01), and the SpA type (type 2; OR 5.86; 95% CI 1.72-24.65; p < 0.01) showed significant association with prolonged operations. In MILP cases, sex (male; OR 9.07; 95% CI 2.61-38.65; p < 0.001) and the pancreatic resection line (above the portal vein; OR 4.12; 95% CI 1.18-17.08; p = 0.03) showed significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

SpA type 2 may negatively affect surgical outcomes. Therefore, it is important to recognize and approach vascular anatomy appropriately. MIS, especially robotic surgery, may be effective in mitigating the negative effects of variations in vascular anatomy.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days.

INTERPRETATION

A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

FUNDING

Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

Importance

Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.

Objective

To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.

Exposures

The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.

Results

From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.

Conclusion and Relevance

In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

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.

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.

Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study

Background

Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS).

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk.

Results

A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87).

Conclusion

The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.

Precision vascular anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasingly performed worldwide; however, the surgical anatomy required to safely perform MIDP has not yet been fully considered. This review evaluated the literature concerning peripancreatic vascular anatomy, which is considered important to conduct safe MIDP.

METHODS

A database search of PubMed and Ichushi (Japanese) was conducted. Qualified studies investigating the anatomical variations of peripancreatic vessels related to MIDP were evaluated using SIGN methodology.

RESULTS

Of 701 articles yielded by our search strategy, 76 articles were assessed in this systematic review. The important vascular anatomy required to recognize MIDP included the pancreatic parenchymal coverage on the root and the running course of the splenic artery, branching patterns of the splenic artery, confluence positions of the left gastric vein and the inferior mesenteric vein, forms of pancreatic veins including the centro-inferior pancreatic vein, characteristics of the left renal vein, and collateral routes perfusing the spleen following Warshaw's technique. Very few articles evaluating the relationship between the anatomical variations and surgical outcomes of MIDP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The precise knowledge of peripancreatic vessels is important to adequately complete MIDP. More detailed anatomic analyses and descriptions will benefit surgeons and their patients who are facing these operations.

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.

Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey

BACKGROUND

The recent Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) advise all centers that perform MIPS to participate in multicenter registries to safeguard optimal outcomes and patient safety. During the design phase of a pan-European registry on MIPS, the European consortium of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) sought input from European HPB surgeons.

METHODS

An anonymous online questionnaire with 23 questions on MIPS practice was sent to all member centers of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and E-MIPS.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were obtained from 98 centers in 23 countries, of which 75 (76.5%) were academic centers. Centers had a median annual pancreatoduodenectomy volume of 45. The most-performed MIPS procedure was laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (93.9% of centers). Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 49% of all centers. Some 25 centers already participated in an ongoing national registry, and were willing to share their data with the European registry on MIPS. The most mentioned (45.4%) maximum time for processing one patient's data into the registry was 10-15 min.

CONCLUSION

This European survey showed considerable support for the European registry on MIPS.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

Purpose

The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP.

Results

Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0–32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients.

Conclusion

The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.

Preventing clinically relevant pancreatic fistula with combination of linear stapling plus continuous suture of the stump in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fistula is one of the serious complications for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy, which leads to significant morbidity. The aim of our study is to compare linear stapling closure plus continuous suture with linear stapling closure alone during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients underwent LDP at our institution between 2011 and 2013. Twelve patients had linear stapling closure with peri-firing compression (LSC) alone compared with ten patients who had linear stapling closure, peri-firing compression plus continuous suture (LSC/CS) for stump closure of remnant pancreas in LDP. Biochemical leak and clinically relevant POPF were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

POPF occurred in 4 of 12 (33.3%) patients with linear stapling closure while no patient developed a clinically relevant POPF in the triple combination of linear stapling, peri-firing compression plus continuous suture group (p = 0.043).1 patient (8.3%) in the LSC group and 5 patients (50%) in the LSC/CS group had evidence of a biochemical leak. There were no significant differences in operative time (188.3 vs 187.0 min) and blood loss (135 vs. 240 g) between both groups but there was a significantly of shorter length of hospital stay (11.9 vs. 19.9 days) in LSC/CS group (p = 0.037). There was no mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The triple combination of linear stapling, peri-firing compression plus continuous suture in LDP has effectively prevented occurrence of clinically relevant ISGPF POPF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered September 30, 2019 at Showa University Ethics Committee as IRB protocol numbers 2943.

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.

RESULTS

After screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.

Virtual reality with three-dimensional image guidance of individual patients' vessel anatomy in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

PURPOSE

Three-dimensional virtual endoscopy (3DVE) has the potential advantage of enhanced anatomic delineation and spatial orientation during laparoscopic procedures. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of 3DVE guidance in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients presenting to our hospital with a variety of pancreatic tumors underwent preoperative computed tomography scanning to clearly define the major peripancreatic vasculature and correlate it with a 3DVE system (SYNAPSE VINCENT: Fujifilm Medical, Tokyo, Japan). This map served as the guide during preoperative planning, surgical education, and simulation and as intraoperative navigation reference for LDP. Operative records and pathological findings were analyzed for each procedure. Operative parameters were compared between the 38 patients in this study and 8 patients performed without 3DVE guidance at our institution.

RESULTS

The 3DVE navigation system successfully created a preoperative resection map in all patients. Relevant peripancreatic vasculature displayed on the system was identified and compared during the intervention. The mean blood loss in LDP performed under 3DVE guidance versus LDP without 3DVE was 168.5 +/- 347.6 g versus 330.0 +/- 211.4 g, p = 0.008 while and the operative time was 171.9 +/- 51.7 min versus 240.6 +/- 24.8 min, p = 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

3DVE in conjunction with a "laparoscopic eye" creates a preoperative and intraoperative three-dimensional data platform that potentially enhances the accuracy and safety of LDP.

Stepwise implementation of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Case series of a single centre's experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery still represents a challenge for surgeons. However, in recent decades the experience is expanding. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is safe, feasible and worthwhile. This study analyses the first 100 consecutive LPRs in our centre.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of the first 100 LPRs in a single supra-regional Belgian centre, performed between January 2012 and January 2019. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. All procedures were performed laparoscopically by two attending surgeons, specialized in minimally invasive and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

Of 100 procedures, 62 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies (LPD) and 36 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) were performed, along with 1 enucleation and 1 central pancreatectomy. Indication was malignancy in 70%. Conversion rate was 24,2% in LPD and 11% in LDP. Median operative time was 330 min (IQR 300-360) in LPD and 150 min (IQR 142.5-210) in LDP. Median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-487.5) in LPD and 150 mL (IQR 50-500) in LDP, transfusion rate was 22.6% and 8.3% respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 13 days (IQR 10-19.25) in LPD and 9 days (IQR 9-14) in LDP. R0 resection rate was 88.6% (62/70). Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) was 12%. Thirty-day mortality was 0%, 90-day mortality was 2%.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that LPR is a feasible and safe alternative to open pancreatic surgery. Safe implementation with a clear strategy is fundamental to gain experience and overcome the learning curve of this technically demanding procedures.

Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly being performed as an alternative to open surgery. Whether the implementation and corresponding learning curve of LDP have an impact on patient outcome is unknown. The aim was to investigate the temporal trends in practice across UK centres.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study of LDP in 11 tertiary referral centres in the UK between 2006 and 2016. The learning curve was analysed by pooling data for the first 15 consecutive patients who had LDP and examining trends in surgical outcomes in subsequent patients.

RESULTS

In total, 570 patients underwent LDP, whereas 888 underwent open resection. For LDP the median duration of operation was 240 min, with 200 ml blood loss. The conversion rate was 12·1 per cent. Neuroendocrine tumours (26·7 per cent) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (19·7 per cent) were commonest indications. The proportion of LDPs increased from 24·4 per cent in 2006-2009 (P1) to 46·0 per cent in 2014-2016 (P3) (P < 0·001). LDP was increasingly performed for patients aged 70 years or more (16 per cent in P1 versus 34·4 per cent in P3; P = 0·002), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (6 versus 19·1 per cent; P = 0·005) and advanced malignant tumours (27 versus 52 per cent; P = 0·016). With increasing experience, there was a trend for a decrease in blood transfusion rate (14·1 per cent for procedures 1-15 to 3·5 per cent for procedures 46-75; P = 0·008), ICU admissions (32·7 to 19·2 per cent; P = 0·021) and median duration of hospital stay (7 (i.q.r. 5-9) to 6 (4-7) days; P = 0·002). After 30 procedures, a decrease was noted in rates of both overall morbidity (57·7 versus 42·2 per cent for procedures 16-30 versus 46-75 respectively; P = 0·009) and severe morbidity (18·8 versus 9·7 per cent; P = 0·031).

CONCLUSION

LDP has increased as a treatment option for lesions of the distal pancreas as indications for the procedure have expanded. Perioperative outcomes improved with the number of procedures performed.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Splenic preservation versus splenectomy in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

Background

The laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy is associated with higher rates of splenic preservation compared to open surgery. Although favorable postoperative short-term outcomes have been reported in open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy when compared to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, it is unclear whether this observation applies to the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS).

Study design

This is a UK wide, propensity score-matched study, including patients who underwent LSPDP or LDPS between 2006 and 2016. Short-term outcomes were compared between LSPDP and LDPS according to intention to treat. Additionally, risk factors for unplanned splenectomy were explored.

Results

A total of 456 patients were included from eleven centers (229 LSPDP and 227 LDPS). We were able to match 173 LSPDP cases to 173 LDPS cases, according to intention to treat. No differences were seen in postoperative morbidity between the groups. The only identified risk factor for unplanned splenectomy was tumor size ≥ 30 mm.

Conclusions

Preserving the spleen during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is not associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to sacrificing the spleen. Tumor size is a risk factor for unplanned splenectomy.

International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) "Coimbatore Summit Statements"

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as "Coimbatore Summit Statements".

A single institution's 21-year experience with surgically resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of survival and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) comprise a heterogeneous group of tumors with a varied biological behavior. In the present study, we analyzed the experience of 79 pNETs resected between 1999 and 2014. The pathologic prognostic factors (European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, ENETS; and AJCC) classification, vascular invasion (VI), proliferation index (ki-67) and the presence of necrosis were retrospectively reviewed.

METHODS

The clinical data of 79 patients with pNETs who underwent surgery were retrospectively analyzed. Mortality rates and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate survival over time for pathologic stages, tumor functionality, and vascular invasion. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazard ratio regarding ENETS, AJCC staging, sex, tumor functionality and vascular invasion.

RESULTS

The male:female ratio was 40:39. Twenty-one patients (26%) had functional tumors and 58 (73.4%) had non-functional tumors, of which 35 (44.3%) were diagnosed incidentally. Seventeen Whipple procedures, 46 distal pancreatectomies (including 26 laparoscopic and 20 open procedures), 8 laparoscopic central pancreatectomies, 1 laparoscopic resection of the uncinated process and 7 enucleations (one laparoscopic) were performed. Vascular invasion and necrosis were observed in 29 of 75 cases (38.6%) and in 16 cases (29%), respectively. The comparison between survivor functions of ENETS staging categories showed statistically significant differences (p = 0.042). Mortality rate was higher in patients with non-functioning tumors compared with hormonally functioning tumors (p = 0.052) and in those with vascular invasion (p = 0.186).

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the heterogeneity of pNETs, the ENETS TNM classification efficiently predicts long-term prognosis. The non-functioning tumors and the presence of vascular invasion are associated with poor prognosis.

Single-Surgeon Learning Curve in 111 Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomies: Does Operative Time Tell the Whole Story?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is becoming the standard treatment for left-sided pancreatic disease. Learning curve identification is essential to ensure a safe and steady expansion. However, large (n > 30) single-surgeon learning curve series are lacking.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of all patients undergoing LDP between June 2007 and March 2016 by a single surgeon were collected prospectively. For learning curve analysis, the first 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 LDPs were compared with LDPs performed thereafter.

RESULTS

In total, 111 LDPs were performed, of which 2 (2%) were converted. Median operative time was 200 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 150 to 245 minutes) and median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100 to 300 mL). Learning curve analysis did not show improvements in operative time or blood loss. However, the number of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma increased after 30 cases and a significant reduction of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications was seen; from 30% (n = 9) for cases 1 to 30 to 5% (n = 4) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C fistulas (33% [n = 10] vs 9% [n = 7]; p = 0.001) and percutaneous drainage rate (23% [n = 7] vs 4% [n = 3]; p = 0.001) were lower. Hospital stay was 7 days (IQR 5 to 13 days) for cases 1 to 30 vs 5 days (IQR 4 to 6 days) for cases 31 to 111 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Operative outcomes of LDP remained stable with increasing surgical complexity over time. Postoperative outcomes, such as complications and length of hospital stay, improved after the first 30 cases. When describing learning curves, short- and long-term outcomes should be considered.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

After technological advances and increased experiences, more complicated surgeries including distal pancreatectomy can be easily performed with acceptable oncologic results, and decreased mortality and morbidity. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have several advantages including less blood loss, less hospital stay, less pain. Several studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and LDP resulted that both techniques have similar results according to pancreas fistulas, oncological results, costs and operation indications. Morbidity is very low in high volume centers, for this reason at least ten cases should be performed for the learning curve. Several authors remarked important technical points in LDP in order to perform safe and acceptable LDP in several studies. Here in this review, we aimed to overview the results of previous studies about LDP and discuss the technical points of LDP.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (MI) pancreatic surgery appears to be gaining popularity, but its implementation throughout Europe and the opinions regarding its use in pancreatic cancer patients are unknown.

METHODS

A 30-question survey was sent between June and December 2014 to pancreatic surgeons of the European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and 5 European national pancreatic societies. Incomplete responses were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 237 pancreatic surgeons responded. After excluding 34 incomplete responses, 203 responses from 27 European countries were included. 164 (81%) surgeons were employed at a university hospital, 184 (91%) performed advanced MI surgery and 148 (73%) performed MI distal pancreatectomy. MI pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by 42 (21%) surgeons, whereas 9 (4.4%) surgeons had performed more than 10 procedures. Robot-assisted MI pancreatic surgery was performed by 28 (14%) surgeons. 63 (31%) surgeons expected MI distal pancreatectomy for cancer to be inferior to open distal pancreatectomy concerning oncological outcomes. 151 (74%) surgeons expected to benefit from training in MI distal pancreatectomy and 149 (73%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

MI distal pancreatectomy is a common procedure, although its use for cancer is still disputed. MI pancreatoduodenectomy is still an uncommon procedure. Specific training and a randomized trial regarding MI pancreatic cancer surgery are welcomed.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy with or without Preservation of the Spleen for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare tumor of the pancreas. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a feasible and safe procedure, and successful spleen preservation rates are higher using a laparoscopic approach. We hypothesized that certain patients with SPN would be good candidates for laparoscopic surgery; however, few surgeons have reported laparoscopic DP for SPN. We discuss the preoperative assessment and surgical simulation for two SPN cases. A simulation was designed because we consider that a thorough preoperative understanding of the procedure based on three-dimensional image analysis is important for successful laparoscopic DP. We also discuss the details of the actual laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation that we performed for our two SPN cases. It is critical to use appropriate instruments at appropriate points in the procedure; surgical instruments are numerous and varied, and surgeons should maximize the use of each instrument. Finally, we discuss the key techniques and surgical pitfalls in laparoscopic DP with or without splenic preservation. We conclude that experience alone is inadequate for successful laparoscopic surgery.

Effectiveness and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on patients at high anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is the most acceptable procedure in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, knowledge regarding patients at a high anesthetic risk during lengthy and technically demanding LDP is controversial. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of LDP in patients with high anesthetic risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective collection retrospective review of patients underwent LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) from January 2011 until December 2013. By the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, patients were divided into low- and high-risk patients. We compared the clinical, perioperative, and postoperative results in these patients.

RESULTS

The cohort included 77 patients: 20 underwent LDP, and 57 underwent ODP. There were 30 patients in the low-risk group and 47 patients in the high-risk group. In high-risk patients, LDP, compared with ODP, presented a shorter operating time (mean, 220.8±101.1 minutes versus 299.4±124.3 minutes; P=.038), less blood loss (409.3±569.9 mL versus 1083.1±1583.0 mL; P=.039), higher rate of spleen preservation (73.3% versus 43.8%, P=.037), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) (9.5±3.0 days versus 15.7±9.4 days; P=.044).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, LDP provides early recovery and better cosmetic appearance. In high anesthetic risk patients, LDP shows less operative time, less perioperative blood loss, a higher rate of spleen preservation, slighter complication, and shorter LOS, which might explain why LDP is a feasible and effective procedure.

Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease: Review of the Literature

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.

Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been shown to be associated with favorable postoperative outcomes using meta-analysis. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies yet. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected perioperative data of 2,266 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy in 69 institutes from 2006-2013 in Japan. Among them, 2,010 patients were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups using unmatched and propensity matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy, including higher rate of preservation of spleen and splenic vessels (P < 0.001); lower rates of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.020), clinical grade of pancreatic fistula (International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B and C; P < 0.001), and morbidity (P < 0.001); and shorter hospital stay (P = 0.001), but a longer operative time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with more favorable perioperative outcomes than open distal pancreatectomy.

Implementation of enhanced recovery programme for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: feasibility, safety and cost analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic resection is a complex procedure that involves exposure of the retroperitoneal gland, dissection around major vascular structures, and management of an intricate organ, all of which results in a procedure associated with a high morbidity. The application of minimally invasive techniques to pancreatic resection have been studied only relatively recently. This analysis of the current concepts in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery focuses on a select look at currently published series or reviews from centers and groups that have the most experience with this procedure. We aim to present a comprehensive review gained from the experiences of those who are on the leading edge of the learning curve, with an emphasis on describing the similarities and differences between the minimally invasive and open pancreatic procedure. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears to be on the verge of widespread acceptance and shows clear benefits over its open counterpart. Minimally invasive proximal (right-sided) pancreatectomy, on the other hand, appears to be limited to select centers that have been able to demonstrate promising results despite its challenges. Additionally, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and enucleation appear feasible as experience is gained in laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic resection.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Educating surgeons about advanced laparoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP) has been recognized worldwide as a feasible and highly beneficial procedure. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Lap-DP techniques are being implemented safely by surgeons training to perform this procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes of Lap-DP in patients operated on by the surgeon originating this procedure at our hospital (expert surgeon group [E group], n = 47) and patients operated on by surgeons training to perform this procedure (training surgeons group [T group], n = 53).

RESULTS

The median operating times for the E group and T group were 321 min (range, 150-653 min) and 314 min (range, 173-629 min), respectively; these times were not significantly different (P = 0.4769). The median blood loss in the T group (100 mL; range, 0-1950 mL) was significantly smaller than in the E group (280 mL; range, 0-1920 mL) (P = 0.0003). There were no significant intergroup differences in other operative results: combined operation ratio, spleen- and splenic vessels-preserving ratio, hand-assisted procedure ratio, and the ratio of transition to open. The frequency of pancreatic fistulas in the E group and T group was 12.8% and 16.9%, respectively; these rates were not significantly different (P = 0.5886). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other complications and reoperation rates. The median hospital stay for the E group was significantly shorter than for the T group (10 vs 13 days; P = 0.0307).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis shows that teaching safe Lap-DP techniques to surgeons is reflected in stable perioperative outcomes.

Assessment of a complication risk score and study of complication profile in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the patient-specific risk for major postoperative morbidity in a series of 100 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).

METHODS

A previously established complication risk score (CRS), identifying body mass index (BMI), estimated blood loss (EBL), and pancreatic specimen length as determinants of postoperative morbidity were examined against the observed outcomes. In addition, multivariate analyses were performed to investigate risk factors specific to our study population.

RESULTS

The postoperative morbidity rate was 49 %, major complication accounted for 12 %, and clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae (PF) were 13 %. The incidence of any complications, major complications, any PF, and clinically relevant PF did not vary appreciably when the CRS increased. The multivariate analysis indicated that male sex and an EBL ≥150 mL were independent predictors of major morbidity and clinically relevant PF.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the previously published CRS based on pre- and intraoperative factors was not able to predict the postoperative risk in our population. This is probably because risk scores may not be able to adjust for the case-mix (heterogeneity in baseline patient characteristics). According to our data, men and patients with EBL ≥150 mL are more likely to develop major postoperative complications after LDP.

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malign diseases of the digestive system: Indications, limitations, and evidence

The laparoscopic technique was introduced in gastrointestinal surgery in the mid 1980s. Since then, the development of this technique has been extraordinary. Triggered by technical innovations (stapling devices or coagulation/dissecting devices), nowadays any type of gastrointestinal resection has been successfully performed laparoscopically and can be performed laparoscopically dependent on the patient’s condition. This summary gives an overview over 30 years of laparoscopic surgery with focus on today’s indications and evidence. Main indications remain the more common procedures, e.g., appendectomy, cholecystectomy, bariatric procedures or colorectal resections. For all these indications, the laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard with less perioperative morbidity. Regarding oncological outcome there have been several high-quality randomized controlled trials which demonstrated equivalency between laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Less common procedures like esophagectomy, oncological gastrectomy, liver and pancreatic resections can be performed successfully as well by an experienced surgeon. However, the evidence for these special indications is poor and a general recommendation cannot be given. In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the field of gastrointestinal surgery by reducing perioperative morbidity without disregarding surgical principles especially in oncological surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single center

Pancreatic surgery was reported as early as 1898. Since then significant developments have been made in the field of pancreatic resections. In addition, advances in laparoscopic surgery in general have seen the description of this approach in pancreatic surgery with increasing frequency. Although there are no randomized controlled trials, several large series and comparative studies have reported on the short and long term outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, in the last decade published systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported on cost effectiveness and outcomes of these procedures.