Distal pancreatic resection: technical differences between open and laparoscopic approaches

Short-Term Outcomes of Conventional Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Evidence from US National Inpatient Sample, 2005-2018

BACKGROUND

The primary treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, and laparoscopic resection offers benefits over open surgery. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Data of adults ≥ 20 years old with pancreatic cancer who underwent conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were extracted from the United States (US) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2005-2018 database. Comorbidities and complications were identified through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Short-term outcomes were compared using logistic regression and included length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharge, and total hospital costs.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were included; 27% received robot-assisted, and 73% received conventional laparoscopic surgery. The mean age of all patients was 65.3 years, and 52% were females. Multivariable analysis revealed that robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of perioperative complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.83) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Specifically, robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly decreased risk of VTE (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.83) and postoperative blood transfusion (aOR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23-0.61). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (0.76 days shorter, 95% CI: -1.43--0.09) but greater total hospital costs (18,284 USD greater, 95% CI: 4369.03-32,200.70) than conventional laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher costs, robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy is associated with decreased risk of complications and shorter hospital stays than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Surgical Perspectives of Open vs. Laparoscopic Approaches to Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy: A Comprehensive Review

Pancreaticojejunostomy, a critical step in pancreatic surgery, has significantly evolved surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques. This comprehensive review explores open surgery's historical success, advantages, and disadvantages, emphasizing surgeons' accrued experience and familiarity with this approach. However, heightened morbidity and prolonged recovery associated with open pancreaticojejunostomy underscore the need for a nuanced evaluation of alternatives. The advent of robotic-assisted surgery introduces a paradigm shift in pancreatic procedures. Enhanced dexterity, facilitated by wristed instruments, allows intricate suturing and precise tissue manipulation crucial in pancreatic surgery. Three-dimensional visualization augments surgeon perception, improving spatial orientation and anastomotic alignment. Moreover, the potential for a reduced learning curve may enhance accessibility, especially for surgeons transitioning from open techniques. Emerging technologies, including advanced imaging modalities and artificial intelligence, present promising avenues for refining both open and minimally invasive approaches. The ongoing pursuit of optimal outcomes mandates a judicious consideration of surgical techniques, incorporating technological advancements to navigate challenges and enhance patient care in pancreaticojejunostomy.

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy from multi-port to reduced-port surgery approach

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery via the multi-port approach has become a primary surgical method for distal pancreatectomy (DP) due to its advantages of lower wound pain and superior cosmetic results. Some studies have applied reduced-port techniques for DP in an attempt to enhance cosmetic outcomes due to the minimally invasive effects. Numerous recent review studies have compared multi-port laparoscopic DP (LDP) and multi-port robotic DP (RDP); most of these studies concluded multi-port RDP is more beneficial than multi-port LDP for spleen preservation. However, there have been no comprehensive reviews of the value of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

AIM

To search for and review the studies on spleen preservation and the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DP that compared reduced-port DP surgery with multi-port DP surgery.

METHODS

The PubMed medical database was searched for articles published between 2013 and 2022. The search terms were implemented using the following Boolean search algorithm: ("distal pancreatectomy" OR "left pancreatectomy" OR "peripheral pancreatic resection") AND ("reduced-port" OR "single-site" OR "single-port" OR "dual-incision" OR "single-incision") AND ("spleen-preserving" OR "spleen preservation" OR "splenic preservation"). A literature review was conducted to identify studies that compared the perioperative outcomes of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published in the period from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved using three groups of search terms. Two studies were added after manually searching the related papers. Finally, 10 papers were selected after removing case reports (n = 3), non-English language papers (n = 1), technique papers (n = 1), reviews (n = 1), and animal studies (n = 1). The common items were defined as items reported in more than five papers, and data on these common items were extracted from all papers. The ten studies included a total of 337 patients (females/males: 231/106) who underwent DP. In total, 166 patients (females/males, 106/60) received multi-port LDP, 126 (females/males, 90/36) received reduced-port LDP, and 45 (females/males, 35/10) received reduced-port RDP.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-port RDP leads to a lower intraoperative blood loss, a lower postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and shorter hospital stay and follow-up duration, but has a lower spleen preservation rate.

Splenectomy and Distal Pancreaticosplenectomy: Surgical Anatomy and Technique Specific to Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is one of the most aggressive malignancies in women and usually presents at an advanced stage. Complete tumor debulking and platinum sensitivity are the two important determinants of survival in ovarian cancer. Upper abdominal surgery with bowel resections and peritonectomy are usually needed to achieve optimal cytoreduction. Splenic disease in the form of diaphragmatic peritoneal disease or omental caking at the splenic hilum is not infrequent. Around 1-2% of these require distal pancreaticosplenectomy (DPS) and the decision to perform DPS versus splenectomy should be made early in the intraoperative period to prevent unnecessary hilar dissection and bleeding. We hereby describe the surgical anatomy of the spleen and pancreas and point of technique of splenectomy and DPS specific to advanced ovarian cancers.

Risk factor analysis and prediction of postoperative clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a serious complication. In the present study, we aimed to identify the risk factors associated with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and establish a nomogram model for predicting CR-POPF after DP.

METHODS

In total, 115 patients who underwent DP at the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command between January 2005 and December 2020 were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent risk factors associated with CR-POPF. Then, a nomogram was formulated based on the results of multivariable logistic regression analysis. The predictive performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses were used to validate the clinical application value of the model.

RESULTS

The incidence of CR-POPF was 33.0% (38/115) in the present study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the following variables as independent risk factors for POPF: body mass index (BMI) (OR 4.658, P = 0.004), preoperative albumin level (OR 7.934, P = 0.001), pancreatic thickness (OR 1.256, P = 0.003) and pancreatic texture (OR 3.143, P = 0.021). We created a nomogram by incorporating the above mentioned risk factors. The nomogram model showed better predictive value, with a concordance index of 0.842, sensitivity of 0.710, and specificity of 0.870 when compared to each risk factor. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses also indicated that the nomogram conferred a high clinical net benefit.

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram could accurately and objectively predict the risk of postoperative CR-POPF in individuals who underwent DP, which could help clinicians with early identification of patients who might develop CR-POPF and early development of a suitable fistula mitigation strategy and postoperative management.

A Prognostic Impact of Splenectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Benign/Borderline Pancreatic Tumors: A Change of the Era

PURPOSE

In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005-2012) and Era 2 (2013-2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers.

CONCLUSION

We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Acinar cell density at the pancreatic resection margin is associated with post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis and the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula

BACKGROUND

There has been recent evidence supporting post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis as a factor in the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aims of this study were to evaluate: (i) the correlation of the acinar cell density at the pancreatic resection margin with the intra-operative amylase concentration (IOAC) of peri-pancreatic fluid, postoperative pancreatitis, and POPF; and (ii) the association between postoperative pancreatitis on the first postoperative day and POPF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic resection between June 2016 and July 2017 were included for analysis. Fluid for IOAC was collected, and amylase concentration was determined in drain fluid on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5. Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen-2 concentrations were determined on the first postoperative day. Histology slides of the pancreatic resection margin were scored for acinar cell density.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were included in the analysis. Acinar cell density significantly correlated with IOAC (r = 0.566, p < 0.001), and was significantly associated with postoperative pancreatitis (p < 0.001), and POPF (p = 0.003). Postoperative pancreatitis was significantly associated with the development of POPF (OR 17.81, 95%CI 2.17-145.9, p = 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The development of POPF may involve a complex interaction between acinar cell density, immediate leakage of pancreatic fluid, and postoperative pancreatitis.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

Background

A recent Cochrane review compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for people with for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas and found that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce the length of hospital stay. We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.

Method

Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. A time horizon of 5 years was used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£3,708.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -£9,473.62 to £16,115.69) but the 95% CI includes zero, indicating that there is significant uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy. The probability laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer was between 70% and 80% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds generally used in England (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to the survival proportions and the operating time.

Conclusions

There is considerable uncertainty about whether laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in the NHS setting.

Modified Appleby Procedure for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Does Improved Neoadjuvant Therapy Warrant Such an Aggressive Approach?

BACKGROUND

With improved neoadjuvant regimens, more aggressive surgical resections may be warranted for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) with focal encasement of the celiac axis (CA) and proximal common hepatic artery (HA). We sought to investigate the clinicopathological features and outcomes of the modified Appleby procedure (DP-CAR) in light of improved neoadjuvant therapies.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all pancreatectomies performed at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA, was reviewed to identify all patients who underwent DP-CAR for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between 2004 and 2016. A 3:1 match for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) versus DP-CAR was performed on the basis of their clinicopathological features.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients who underwent DP-CAR were matched to 51 patients who underwent DP for resection of PDAC. Prior to DP-CAR, 15 (88.2 %) patients received neoadjuvant therapy, and the most frequently used regimen was FOLFIRINOX (80.0 %). DP-CAR was associated with longer operative time (404 vs. 309 min; p = 0.003) and elevated postoperative liver transaminases compared with DP. No difference was observed in estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization. R0 resection was achieved in 82.4 % of DP-CAR patients versus 92.2 % of DP patients (p = 0.355). No difference was observed in postoperative outcomes, including overall complications, pancreatic fistula, readmission, and mortality. Median survival for DP-CAR was 20 versus 19 months in the DP group (p = 0.757).

CONCLUSION

In light of improved neoadjuvant therapeutic regimens, the modified Appleby procedure is a feasible and safe treatment option for patients with LAPC involving the CA, with morbidity and mortality similar to patients undergoing classic DP.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Resection of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), because it is associated with increased survival. Minimally invasive procedures are a safe modality for the surgical treatment of PNETs. In malignant PNETs, laparoscopy is not associated with a compromise in terms of oncologic resection, and provides the benefits of decreased postoperative pain, better cosmetic results, shorter hospital stay, and a shorter postoperative recovery period. Further prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are required for the analysis of these minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of PNETs and their comparison with traditional open pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are a rare heterogeneous group of endocrine neoplasms. Surgery remains the best curative option for this type of tumor. Over the past two decades, with the development of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, an increasingly larger number of PNET resections are being performed by these minimally-invasive techniques. In this review article, the various laparoscopic surgical options for the excision of PNETs are discussed. In addition, a summary of the literature describing the outcome of these treatment modalities is presented.

Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has been regarded as a safe and effective treatment for benign and borderline malignant pancreatic lesions. However, its application for left-sided pancreatic cancer is still being debated. The clinical evidence for radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)-based minimally invasive approaches for left-sided pancreatic cancer was reviewed. Potential indications and surgical concepts for minimally invasive RAMPS were suggested. Despite the limited clinical evidence for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic cancer, the currently available clinical evidence supports the use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy under oncologic principles in well-selected left sided pancreatic cancers. A pancreas-confined tumor with an intact fascia layer between the pancreas and left adrenal gland/kidney positioned more than 1 or 2 cm away from the celiac axis is thought to constitute a good condition for the use of margin-negative minimally invasive RAMPS. The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) anterior RAMPS is feasible and safe for margin-negative resection in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. The oncologic feasibility of the procedure remains to be determined; however, the currently available interim results indicate that even oncologic outcomes will not be inferior to those of open radical distal pancreatosplenectomy.

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: current concepts

The minimally invasive approach has been slow to gain acceptance in the field of pancreatic surgery even though its advantages over the open approach have been extensively documented in the medical literature. The reasons for the reluctant use of the technique are manifold. Laparoscopic distal or left sided pancreatic resections have slowly become the standard approach to lesions of the pancreatic body and tail as a result of evolution in technology and experience. A number of studies have shown the potential advantages of the technique in terms of safety, blood loss, oncological and economic feasibility, hospital stay and time to recovery from surgery. This review aims to provide an overview of the recent advances in the field of laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and discuss potential future developments.

Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's transition over a 7-year period

OBJECTIVES

Many studies have shown laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to have benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This institution made a unique abrupt transition from an exclusively open approach to a preference for the laparoscopic technique. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing LDP and ODP, respectively, over the period of transition.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing LDP (n = 82) or ODP (n = 90) was performed. Surrogate oncologic markers for the subgroup of patients with malignant disease were also studied.

RESULTS

The ODP and LDP groups were well matched with regard to demographics, comorbidities and tumour characteristics. Significant differences were noted in favour of the LDP group in which decreases were seen in estimated blood loss (<0.001), need for packed red blood cell transfusions (<0.001), length of hospital stay (<0.001) and intensive care unit stay (<0.001). No other significant differences in the occurrence of complications or oncologic outcomes were seen. Rates of Grade B and C fistulae were 10% and 6% in the ODP and LDP groups, respectively. Grade III-V complications occurred in 20% and 13% of the ODP and LDP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy continues to compare favourably with ODP when well-matched patient series are reviewed. The results show a decreased need for blood transfusions and hospital resources in LDP. Additionally, there may be oncologic advantages associated with LDP compared with ODP in pancreatic malignancies.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: experience of 22 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery has gradually expanded its applications to include pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach are still debated. This article aims to present data regarding the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single center.

METHODS

From March 2003 to June 2010, a total of 22 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with a totally laparoscopic approach, using a five-trocar technique. Reconstruction of the digestive tract was adapted to the aspect of the pancreatic stump, with 6 patients having Wirsung duct occlusion and 16 patients pancreaticodigestive anastomosis. Patient selection, short-term outcomes, oncologic results, and technical issues were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 392 (range, 327-570) min. Conversion was required in 2 patients (9.1 %) as a result of bleeding and difficult dissection. Major intraoperative complications included an injury to the right hepatic artery (4.5 %). Postoperative mortality was 4.5 %. Surgery-related morbidity occurred in 14 patients (63.6 %) and included bleeding (n = 5), pancreatic fistula (n = 6), biliary fistula (n = 2), and dumping syndrome (n = 1). Pancreatic fistulas occurred in 4 patients with duct occlusion and in 2 patients with pancreaticojejunostomy, and they all healed with conservative treatment. Mean hospital stay was 23 (range, 12-35) days. Pathologic diagnoses were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 11), ampullary adenocarcinoma (n = 8), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (n = 3). The resection margins were all free from disease; the mean number of collected lymph nodes was 15 (range, 14-20).

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy entails some issues, including patient selection and management of the pancreatic stump, that are not related to the approach used. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is feasible, safe, and oncologically adequate, but only if performed in selected cases by highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons. Laparoscopy does not provide any significant advantage over traditional surgery, but it may improve postoperative outcomes in the so-called excellence centers, once the learning curve has been overcome. Multicenter randomized trials are needed.

Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically?

Despite the relatively slow start of laparoscopic pancreatectomy relative to other laparoscopic resections, an increasing number of these procedures are being performed around the world. Operations that were once considered impossible to perform laparoscopically, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy and central pancreatectomy are gaining momentum. Technology continues to improve, as does surgical experience and prowess. There are both enough experience and data (though retrospective) to confirm that LDP with or without spleen preservation appears to be a safe treatment for benign or noninvasive lesions of the pancreas. Based on the fact that LDP can be performed with similar or shorter operative times, blood loss, complication rates, and length of hospital stay than ODP, it can be recommended as the treatment of choice for benign and noninvasive lesions in experienced hands when clinically indicated. It is very difficult to make clear recommendations with regard to laparoscopic resection of malignant pancreatic tumors due to the lack of conclusive data. As long as margins are negative and lymph node clearance is within accepted standards, LDP appears to have no untoward oncologic effects on outcome. Certainly more data, preferably in the manner of a randomized clinical trial, are needed before additional recommendations can be made. Potential benefits of laparoscopic resection for cancer include the ability to inspect the abdomen and abort the procedure with minimal damage if occult metastases are identified. This does not delay the onset of palliative chemotherapy, which would be the primary treatment in that circumstance. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there is a greater likelihood of receiving systemic therapy if a laparotomy is avoided in patients who have radiologically occult metastases. Patients may also undergo palliative laparoscopic gastric and biliary bypass if indicated. Faster wound healing may also translate into a shorter waiting time before initiating adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. If the patient develops a wound infection, the infection should be more readily manageable with smaller incisions. Although not proven clinically relevant in humans, the reduction in perioperative stress associated with laparoscopic resection may translate to a cancer benefit for some patients. One report compared markers of systemic inflammatory response in 15 subjects undergoing left pancreatectomy. Eight had hand-access laparoscopic procedures and the rest had standard open surgery. The subjects in the laparoscopic group had statistically lower C-reactive protein levels than the open group on postoperative days one (5.5 mg/dL versus 9.7 mg/dL, P = .006) and three (8.5 mg/dL versus 17.7 mg/dL, P = .003), suggesting that the laparoscopic approach to left pancreatectomy is associated with less inflammation. While this report is underpowered, it supports the notion that MIS cancer surgery may induce less of a systemic insult to the body than standard open cancer surgery. More work in this area is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn. An important issue to consider is that of training surgeons to perform these complex procedures laparoscopically. Not all pancreatectomies are amenable to the laparoscopic approach, even in the most skilled hands. As such, only a percentage of cases will be performed this way and expectations to educate surgeons adequately to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures can be unrealistic, resulting in more "on-the-job" training. Another aspect that draws some controversy is that of the totally laparoscopic procedure versus the hand-access approach. No laparoscopic instrument provides the tactile feedback possible to obtain with the hand. The HALS approach allows for this, and the opportunity to control bleeding during the procedure. HALS also provides a way to improve confidence during the learning-curve phase of these operations. Finally, it is important to remember that if the procedure is failing to progress laparoscopically, or if cancer surgery principles are likely to be violated, the surgeon (and the patient) must be willing to abort the laparoscopic approach and complete the operation using standard open technique. During the next few years we can expect to see more robust outcome data with laparoscopic pancreatectomy. The expectation is that more data will come to light demonstrating benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection as compared with open technique for selected patients. Several groups are considering randomized trials to look at these endpoints. Although more retrospective and prospectively maintained data will certainly be presented, it is less likely that randomized data specifically examining the question oflaparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy for cancer will mature, due to some of the limitations discussed above. Additional areas of discovery are in staple line reinforcement for left pancreatectomy and suturing technology for pancreatico-intestinal anastomosis. Robotic surgery may have a role in pancreatic surgery. Improving optics and visualization with flexible endoscopes with provide novel surgical views potentially improving the safety of laparoscopy. Another area in laparoscopic surgery that is gaining momentum is that of Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). NOTES represents the "holy grail" of incisionless surgery. Can we enucleate a small tumor off the pancreatic body by passing an endoscope through the gastric (or colonic) wall, and bring the specimen out via the mouth or anus? Can we use this approach for formal left pancreatectomies? Pioneers have already developed a porcine model of left pancreatectomy. This technology must clear several hurdles before it is cancer ready; however, technology is moving at a rapid pace.

Is laparoscopic resection adequate in patients with neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors?

Since the first reports with laparoscopic resection of islet cell tumors in 1996, the experience worldwide is still limited, with only short-term outcomes available. Some have suggested that a malignant tumor is a contraindication to laparoscopic resection. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and long-term outcome of the laparoscopic approach in patients with functioning, nonfunctioning, or overt malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNT). To our knowledge this is the largest single-institution series on this subject to date. Patients and methods A total of 49 consecutive patients (43 women, 6 men; mean age 58 years, range 22-83 years) underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) from April 1998 to June 2007. Preoperative localization was done by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography, and Octreoscan imaging. Other than 9 PNTs localized in the head of the pancreas, all tumors were located in the left pancreas. Malignancy was diagnosed based on the presence of lymph nodes or liver metastasis. There were 33 patients with functioning tumors: 4 with gastrinomas (mean size 1.2 cm), 1 with a glucagonoma (4 cm), 3 with vipomas (3.2 cm), 2 with carcinoids (5.2 cm), 20 with sporadic insulinomas (1.4 cm), 2 with insulinoma/multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1) (4.4 cm), and 1 with a malignant insulinoma (13 cm). Sixteen patients had a nonfunctioning tumor (mean size 5 cm). The following techniques were performed: laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap SPDP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (Lap SxDP) and laparoscopic enucleation (Lap En)/laparoscopic excision (Lap E). Lymph node dissection was performed when malignancy was suspected (Strasberg s technique). Evaluation criteria included operative and postoperative factors, pathologic data including R0 or R1 resection (the pancreatic transection margin and all transection margins on the specimen were inked). Long-term outcomes were analyzed by tumor recurrence and patient survival. Results Four cases (8.2%) were converted to open surgery. Overall, Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En/Lap E were performed in 15 (33.3%), 8 (17.8%), and 22 (48.9%) patients, respectively. The operative time and blood loss was significantly lower in the Lap En group compared with the other laparoscopic techniques. The group of patients with malignant tumors undergoing Lap SxDP had a longer operating time and greater blood loss compared with the other distal pancreatectomy (Lap DP) techniques. Overall, the postoperative complications were significantly higher in the Lap En group (42.8%) than in the Lap DP (Lap SPDP+Lap SxDP) group (22%). These complications were mainly pancreatic fistula: 8.7% after Lap DP and 38% after Lap En. The overall morbidity was significantly higher after Lap SPDP (26.7%) than after Lap SxDP (12.5%) owing to the occurrence of splenic complications in the Lap SPDP group without splenic vessel preservation two of seven (28.5%). The means and ranges of hospital stay after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En/Lap E were 5.9 (5-14), 7.5 (5-12), and 5.5 (5-7) days, respectively (NS). Pathology examination of the specimen showed R0 resection in all patients with malignant PNT. The mean time to resumption of previous activities for patients undergoing Lap DP or Lap En was 3 weeks. There were no postoperative (30 days) or hospital deaths. Conclusions This series demonstrates that LPS is feasible and safe in benign-appearing and malignant neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors (NEPTs). The benefits of minimally invasive surgery were manifest in the short hospital stay and acceptable pancreas-related complications in high-risk patients. LPS can achieve negative tangential margins in a high percentage of patients with malignant tumors. Although surgical cure is rare in malignant NEPTs, significant long-term palliation can be achieved in a large proportion of patients with an aggressive surgical approach.

Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has seen significant development but much of the knowledge refers to small and benign pancreatic tumors. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and long-term outcome of the laparoscopic approach in patients with benign, premalignant, and overt malignant lesions of the pancreas. This study, currently, is the largest single center experience worldwide. One hundred twenty-three consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery from April 1998 to April 2007, 20 patients with cysts or pseudocysts for acute and chronic pancreatitis, laparoscopic pancreatic drainage was performed, and were excluded from the analysis. The 103 patients were divided based on preoperative diagnosis: group I, inflammatory tumors for chronic pancreatitis (eight patients); group II, cystic pancreatic neoplasms (29 patients); group III, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (10 patients); group IV, neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors (NETs) (43 patients); and group V ductal adenocarcinoma (13 patients). The median tumor size was 5.3 cm. Pathologic data include R(0) or R(1) resection (transection margins on the specimen were inked). Perioperative data, postoperative complications, and resection modalities were compared using statistical analysis. Long-term outcomes were analysed by tumor recurrence and patient survival. The overall conversion rate was 7%. Laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection was performed in 82 patients (79.6%). Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap SPDP) was performed in 52 patients (63.7%), but with splenic vessels preservation in 22% and without splenic vessels preservation in 41.5%. Laparoscopic en-bloc splenopancreatectomy (Lap SxDP) was performed in 30 patients (36.6%) and laparoscopic enucleation (Lap En) in 20 patients (19.4%). There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was 25.2, 16.7, and 40% after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En, respectively. The overall morbidity rate was significantly higher (p>0.05) in the group of Lap SPDP without splenic vessels preservation comparing with Lap SPDP with splenic vessels preservation because of the occurrence of splenic complications (20.6%). The overall pancreatic fistulas was 7.7, 10, and 35% after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En, respectively; the severity of fistula was significantly higher in the Lap En group (p>0.05). The mean hospital stay was within 1 week in all groups, except in the group of ductal adenocarcinoma, which is 8 days. In this series, 27 patients (26.2%) had malignant disease. R(0) resection was achieved in 90% of ductal adenocarcinoma and 100% for other malignant tumors. The median survival for ductal adenocarcinoma patients was 14 months. This series demonstrates that LPS is feasible and safe in benign-appearing and malignant lesions of the pancreas.