Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies

Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have not evaluated the surgical difficulty of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of elderly age on the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, focusing on surgical difficulty.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Kansai Rosai Hospital between September 2012 and December 2023. Perioperative outcomes were investigated between the elderly (>75 years) and non-elderly (≤75 years) groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included: 26 and 30 in the elderly and non-elderly groups, respectively. The median operative time was significantly shorter in the elderly group than in the non-elderly group (324 vs. 414 min, p = .022), but other surgical outcomes were not significantly different including oncological factors. The median difficulty score was similar between the elderly and non-elderly groups (6 vs. 7, respectively; p = .699). The incidences of postoperative complications and pancreatic fistulas were not significantly different in the elderly and non-elderly groups (23% vs. 43%, p = .159, and 19% vs. 36%, p = .236, respectively), even though analyzed in subgroups with low-to-intermediate or high difficulty score.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and feasibility of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer were not significantly different between elderly and non-elderly patients, even when surgical difficulty was considered. This surgical procedure can be safe and feasible for elderly patients.

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Clinical significance of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery in time-to-complication and length of postoperative hospital stay: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

We retrospectively analyzed pancreatectomy patients and examined the occurrence rate and timing of postoperative complications (time-to-complication; TTC) and their impact on the length of postoperative hospital stay (POHS) to clarify their characteristics, provide appropriate postoperative management, and improve short-term outcomes in the future.

METHODS

A total of 227 patients, composed of 118 pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and 109 distal pancreatectomy (DP) cases, were analyzed. We examined the frequency of occurrence, TTC, and POHS of each type of postoperative complication, and these were analyzed for each surgical procedure. Complications of the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification Grade II or higher were considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Clinically significant complications were observed in 70.3% and 36.7% of the patients with PD and DP, respectively. Complications occurred at a median of 10 days in patients with PD and 6 days in patients with DP. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred approximately 7 days postoperatively in both groups. For the POHS, in cases without significant postoperative complications (CD ≤ I), it was approximately 22 days for PD and 11 days for DP. In contrast, when any complications occurred, POHS increased to 30 days for PD and 19 days for DP (each with additional 8 days), respectively. In particular, POPF prolonged the hospital stay by approximately 11 days for both procedures.

CONCLUSION

Each postoperative complication after pancreatectomy has its own characteristics in terms of the frequency of occurrence, TTC, and impact on POHS. A correct understanding of these factors will enable timely therapeutic intervention and improve short-term outcomes after pancreatectomy.

Short- and long-term outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with radiologic infiltration of splenic vessels for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The effect of radiologic splenic vessels involvement (RSVI) on the survival of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) located in the body and tail of the pancreas is controversial, and its influence on postoperative morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP) is unknown. This study aimed to determine the influence of RSVI on postoperative complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients undergoing DP for PAC.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study of DP was conducted at 7 hepatopancreatobiliary units between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were classified according to the presence of RSVI. A Clavien-Dindo grade of >II was considered to represent a major complication.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included in the analysis. Moreover, 47 patients had vascular infiltration: 4 had arterial involvement, 10 had venous involvement, and 33 had both arterial and venous involvements. The rates of major complications were 20.8% in patients without RSVI, 40.0% in those with venous RSVI, 25.0% in those with arterial RSVI, and 30.3% in those with both arterial and venous RSVIs (P = .024). The DFS rates at 3 years were 56% in the group without RSVI, 50% in the group with arterial RSVI, and 16% in the group with both arterial and venous RSVIs (P = .003). The OS rates at 3 years were 66% in the group without RSVI, 50% in the group with arterial RSVI, and 29% in the group with both arterial and venous RSVIs (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

RSVI increased the major complication rates after DP and reduced the OS and DFS. Therefore, it may be a useful prognostic marker in patients with PAC scheduled to undergo DP and may help to select patients likely to benefit from neoadjuvant treatment.

Advances in the management of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer remains among the malignancies with the worst outcomes. Survival has been improving, but at a slower rate than other cancers. Multimodal treatment, including chemotherapy, surgical resection, and radiotherapy, has been under investigation for many years. Because of the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas, more emphasis on treatment selection has been placed on local extension into major vessels. Recently, the development of more effective treatment regimens has opened up new treatment strategies, but urgent research questions have also become apparent. This review outlines the current management of pancreatic cancer, and the recent advances in its treatment. The review discusses future treatment pathways aimed at integrating novel findings of translational and clinical research.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the 2020s: Recent Institutional Experience and a Narrative Review of Current Evidence

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit's data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit's data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.