Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective review of 14 cases

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a multicenter cohort study on 196 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely accepted as a feasible option for distal pancreatectomy. However, the experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is limited to a small number of studies, reported by expert centers. The present study aimed to evaluate perioperative and oncological outcomes after LDP for PDAC in a large, multicenter cohort of patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the data on 196 patients with histologically verified PDAC, operated at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway), Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Republic of Korea), Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (Paris, France) and University Hospital Southampton (Southampton, UK) between January 2002 and April 2015 was conducted. The patients with standard (SLDP) and extended (i.e., en bloc with adjacent organ, ELDP) resections were compared in terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 196 LDP procedures, 191 (97.4 %) were completed through laparoscopy, while five (2.6 %) were converted to open surgery. ELDP was performed in 30 (15.7 %) cases. Sixty-one (31.9 %) patients experienced postoperative complications, including 48 (25.1 %) with pancreatic fistula. The rate of clinically relevant fistula (grade B/C) was 15.7 %. Median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (2-63) days. Median follow-up was 16 months. Median survival was 31.3 months (95 % CI 22.9-39.6). Three- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 42.4 and 30 %, respectively. SLDP was associated with significantly higher survival compared with ELDP (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP seems to be a feasible and safe procedure, providing satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing three techniques for pancreatic remnant closure following distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains regarding the ideal technique; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare closure techniques and risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines for studies published before January 2014 that compared at least two closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant in distal pancreatectomy. A random-effects model was constructed using weighted odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eligible studies matched the inclusion criteria and 5252 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome measure, the POPF rate, ranged 0 from to 70 per cent. Meta-analysis of the 31 studies comparing stapler versus suture closure showed that the stapler technique had a significantly lower rate of POPF, with a combined OR of 0.77 (95 per cent c.i. 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.031). Anastomotic closure was associated with a significantly lower POPF rate than suture closure (OR 0.55, 0.31 to 0.98; P = 0.042). Combined stapler and suture closure had significantly lower POPF rates than suture closure alone, but no significant difference compared with stapler closure alone.

CONCLUSION

The use of stapler closure or anastomotic closure for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy significantly reduces POPF rates compared with suture closure. The combination of stapler and suture closure shows superiority over suture closure alone.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in Italy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) increased in the past twenty years but the real diffusion of this technique is still unknown as well as the type of centers (high or low volume) in which this procedure is more frequently performed.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the frequency of LDP in Italy and to compare indications and results in high volume centers (HVCs) and in low volume centers (LVCs).

RESULTS

From 95 potentially relevant citations identified, only 5 studies were included. A total of 125 subjects were analyzed, of whom 95 (76.0%) were from HVCs and 30 (24.0%) from LVCs. The mean number of LDPs performed per year was 6.5. The mean number of patients who underwent LDP per year was 8.8 in HVCs and 3.0 in LVCs (P<0.001). The most frequent lesions operated on in HVCs were cystic tumors (62.1%, P<0.001) while, in LVCs, solid neoplasms (76.7%, P<0.001). In HVCs, malignant neoplasms were treated with LDP less frequently than in LVCs (17.9% vs 50.0%, P<0.001). Splenectomy was performed for non-oncologic reason frequenter in HVCs than in LVCs (70.2% vs 25.0%, P=0.004). The length of stay was shorter in HVCs than in LVCs (7.5 vs 11.3, P<0.001). No differences were found regarding age, gender, ductal adenocarcinoma treated, operative time, conversion, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation and margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

LDPs were frequently performed in Italy. The "HVC approach" is characterized by a careful selection of patients undergoing LDP. The "LVC approach" is based on the hypothesis that LDPs are equivalent both in short-term and long-term results to laparotomic approach. These data are not conclusive and they point out the need for a national register of laparoscopic pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic distal splenopancreatectomy (DSP) is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic versus laparotomic DSP in pancreatic body-tail cancer (PBTC) patients.

METHODS

Thirty-four PBTC patients were consecutively and retrospectively hospitalized for elective laparoscopic DSP (n = 11) or laparotomy (n = 23) between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was mean overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

All patients underwent DSP via laparoscopy or laparotomy as scheduled and were followed-up for 12-72 months. The two groups showed statistically similar mean operative time (laparoscopy vs. laparotomy, 150 ± 54 vs. 160 ± 48 min), median volume of intraoperative bleeding (100 [50-400] vs. 150 [50-350] ml), and rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (18.2 vs. 21.7 %). The laparoscopy group had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization (5 [3-12] vs. 8 [7-22] d, P < 0.05). All patients had a clear resection margin and showed statistically similar tumor size (2.8 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7 cm), number of lymph nodes dissected (14.8 ± 4.5 vs. 16.1 ± 5.7), and mean OS (42.0 ± 8.6 vs. 54.0 ± 5.8 mo, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DSP is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative to laparotomy in carefully selected PBTC patients and is associated with a more rapid postoperative recovery.

Is the covering of the resection margin after distal pancreatectomy advantageous?

Background

In recent years, many advances in pancreatic surgery have been achieved. Nevertheless, the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic tail resection does not differ between various techniques, still reaching up to 30% in prospective multicentric studies. Taking into account contradictory results concerning the usefulness of covering resection margins after distal pancreatectomy, we sought to perform a systematic, retrospective analysis of patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy at our center.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed the data of 74 patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy between 2001 and 2011 at the community hospital in Neuss. Demographic factors, indications, postoperative complications, surgical or interventional revisions, and length of hospital stay were registered to compare the outcome of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with coverage of the resection margins vs. patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy without coverage of the resection margins. Differences between groups were calculated using Fisher’s exact and Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

Main indications for pancreatic surgery were insulinoma (n=18, 24%), ductal adenocarcinoma (n=9, 12%), non-single-insulinoma-pancreatogenic-hypoglycemia-syndrome (NSIPHS) (n=8, 11%), and pancreatic cysts with pancreatitis (n=8, 11%). In 39 of 74 (53%) patients no postoperative complications were noted. In detail we found that 23/42 (55%) patients with coverage vs. 16/32 (50%) without coverage of the resection margins had no postoperative complications. The most common complications were pancreatic fistulas in eleven patients (15%), and postoperative bleeding in nine patients (12%). Pancreatic fistulas occurred in patients without coverage of the resection margins in 7/32 (22%) vs. 4/42 (1011%) with coverage are of the resection margins, yet without reaching statistical significance. Postoperative bleeding ensued with equal frequency in both groups (12% with coverage versus 13% without coverage of the resection margins). The reoperation rate was 8%. The hospital stay for patients without coverage was 13 days (5–60) vs. 17 days (8–60) for patients with coverage.

Conclusions

The results show no significant difference in the fistula rate after covering of the resection margin after distal pancreatectomy, which contributes to the picture of an unsolved problem.

Meta-analysis of bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement and risk of fistula following pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

Stapled pancreatic transection is widely used although pancreatic fistula remains a common post-surgical complication.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of existing data regarding pancreatic fistula following stapled pancreatic transection, comparing bare metal staples to reinforced staple loads.

RESULTS

We identified ten manuscripts between 2007 and 2009 reporting outcomes following stapled division of the pancreas (five retrospective reviews, five prospective case series). A total of 483 stapled pancreatic resections are included in this meta-analysis. Of these, 234(48 %) were reinforced (REINF) and 249 (52 %) were bare staples (STPL). Out of 483 cases, there were a total of 100 documented pancreatic leaks (21 %). Sixty-one leaks were reported out of 249 STPL divisions (24 %), while 39 leaks were reported following REINF division (17 %). The overall relative risk of developing a pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy was not significantly different comparing STPL to REINF when all studies were combined (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65-1.53). We further evaluated the data stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and found that prospective studies reported a significantly higher risk of pancreatic fistula with STPL compared to REINF technique (RR 14.45, 95 % CI 3.15-66.21).

CONCLUSION

Reinforced staples may be a preferred method of pancreatic stump closure following distal pancreatectomy.

Minimalinvasive Chirurgie bei Malignomen des Gastrointestinaltrakts: Pankreas - Kontra-Position

<b><i>Hintergrund: </i></b>Für eine Vielzahl von Erkrankungen der Bauchspeicheldrüse gilt die chirurgische Resektion als die Therapie der Wahl. In den vergangenen Jahren wurden die offenen Operationsmethoden für Pankreaserkrankungen zunehmend standardisiert und können mittlerweile mit hoher Sicherheit durchgeführt werden. Unabhängig davon wird zunehmend über laparoskopische Pankreasresektionen berichtet. <b><i>Methode: </i></b>In diesem Artikel stellen wir die aktuelle Literatur zur minimalinvasiven Chirurgie der Bauchspeicheldrüse vor, um sie mit offenen Operationsverfahren zu vergleichen. Besondere Berücksichtigung finden laparoskopische und roboterassistierte Duodenopankreatektomien sowie laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen bei Patienten mit chronischer Pankreatitis sowie mit gutartigen und bösartigen Tumoren. <b><i>Ergebnisse: </i></b>Laparoskopische und roboterassistierte Pankreaskopfresektionen sollten nur in ausgewählten Fällen angewandt werden und gelten als technisch äußerst anspruchsvoll - mit einer erhöhten Inzidenz von Pankreasfisteln. Laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen sind sichere Verfahren mit einem Trend zu einer kürzeren Krankenhausaufenthaltsdauer, sollten jedoch nur für gutartige Tumoren in Betracht gezogen werden. Im Rahmen der onkologischen Chirurgie sollte die offene Pankreasresektion bevorzugt werden. Werden onkologische Eingriffe laparoskopisch durchgeführt, ist eine ausgezeichnete präoperative Diagnostik und gegebenenfalls der Einsatz eines intraoperativen laparoskopischen Ultraschalls notwendig. <b><i>Schlussfolgerungen: </i></b>Obwohl laparoskopische Pankreasresektionen in ausgewählten Fällen von Nutzen sein können, werden sie zukünftig wohl eher die Ausnahme darstellen. Eine allgemeine Umstellung auf laparoskopische Pankreasschwanzresektionen wird aufgrund des Mangels an eindeutigen Vorteilen gegenüber dem offenen Verfahren höchstwahrscheinlich nicht stattfinden.

Integrated bioabsorbable tissue reinforcement in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Division of the stomach in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy may be performed using bare stapler cartridges or cartridges fitted with tissue reinforcement strips, with or without oversewing. Many tissue reinforcement strips are after-market add-on products that must be fitted onto a stapler during surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of 85 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy using a novel integrated bioabsorbable polymer buttress pre-mounted on a single-use loading unit stapler. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.7 ± 5.2 kg/m(2). Morbidity and short-term outcomes were documented. Mean follow-up was 8.1 ± 3.6 months (range, 1.0-16.2 months). There were no mortalities or staple line leaks noted in this series with short-term follow up. The major complication rate (grade III and above) was 7.1% and included: reoperation for staple line bleeding (2.4%, n = 2), gastric sleeve stenosis requiring balloon dilation (2.4%, n = 2), choledocholithiasis 2 weeks after surgery (1.2%, n = 1), and reoperation without abnormality for suspected perioperative obstruction (1.2%, n = 1). Mean percent excess BMI loss at 3 (44.6 ± 11.3), 6 (57.9 ± 17.2), and 12 months (72.4 ± 27.5) was comparable to other published series. The use of an integrated absorbable synthetic polymer for stapled tissue reinforcement in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy appears to be feasible and safe, and yields results consistent with other published techniques.

Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies

BACKGROUND

The current literature suggests that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with faster recovery and less morbidity than open surgery. However, most studies have been limited by a small sample size and a single-institution design. To overcome this problem, the first metaanalysis of studies comparing MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has been performed.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIDP and ODP. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For the metaanalysis, 10 studies including 349 patients undergoing MIDP and 380 patients undergoing ODP were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, and indication for surgery. The rate of conversion from full laparoscopy to hand-assisted procedure was 37%, and that from minimally invasive to open procedure was 11%. Patients undergoing MIDP had less blood loss, a shorter time to oral intake, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The mortality and reoperative rates did not differ between MIDP and ODP. The MIDP approach had fewer overall complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.89], major complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.96), surgical-site infections (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53), and pancreatic fistulas (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The MIDP procedure is feasible, safe, and associated with less blood loss and overall complications, shorter time to oral intake, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, the minimally invasive approach reduces the rate of pancreatic leaks and surgical-site infections after ODP.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid and cystic pancreatic neoplasms: outpatient postoperative management

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a challenging procedure that has been reported in the last decade. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and an outpatient postoperative management after an early hospital discharge.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 11 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies carried out at our institution between November 2005 and June 2007 for cystic and solid pancreatic neoplasms. Mean age was 55.5 years and 10 patients were females. A splenopancreatectomy was carried out in 9 cases, and a spleen-preserving resection was carried out in 2 cases.

RESULTS

Mean blood loss was 73.6 mL and mean operative time was 238.3 minutes. Patients were able to tolerate regular diet after a mean of 1.2 days and were discharged with a drain after a mean of 2.3 days. Two patients developed a mild pancreatic fistula that resolved with conservative management. One patient developed a pancreatic pseudocyst that was followed up with an MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible with a fast postoperative recovery. We recommend close follow-up of the patient in the outpatient clinic and maintaining the intraabdominal drain until a pancreatic fistula can be ruled out based on biochemical analysis of the fluid.

Adjuvant chemoradiation therapy for adenocarcinoma of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to examine the effect of adjuvant 5-FU-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT) after distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the distal pancreas.

METHODS

All patients underwent curative resection for adenocarcinoma of the distal pancreas between December 1985 and June 2006. Patients who received adjuvant CRT were compared with those who underwent surgery alone. A Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curve was used to determine estimates of the median survival and proportion alive at 1 and 2 years; log-rank tests were used to make comparisons between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy; 29 patients were excluded for distant metastases at the time of surgery (n = 12, 10%) or before adjuvant therapy (n = 11, 9%), death within 2 months of surgery (n = 2, 2%), or if CRT treatment status was unknown (n = 4, 3%). Of the remaining 94 patients, 72% received adjuvant 5-FU-based CRT and 28% underwent surgery alone. Overall median survival was 16.2 (95% confidence interval (CI), 13.1-18.9) months. The groups were similar with respect to tumor size, nodal status, and margin status. There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients treated with adjuvant CRT versus surgery alone (p = 0.23). An exploratory subgroup analysis suggested a potential survival benefit of adjuvant CRT in patients with lymph node metastases (16.7 vs. 12.1 months, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant CRT did not increase survival compared with surgery alone; however, patients with node-positive disease appear to benefit from adjuvant CRT.

Video. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy for splenic artery aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Large splenic artery aneurysms are rare but comprise 60% of all visceral artery aneurysms. Most are found incidentally and rupture in the nonpregnant patient has an approximate 25 to 36% mortality rate. Historically these have been managed with an open surgical approach for resection.

METHODS

We present the case of a 43-year-old man with a recent episode of bacterial endocarditis with an incidental finding of a large 6-cm splenic artery aneurysm. There was noted to be splenic vein occlusion and multiple splenic infarcts versus abscesses on preoperative imaging. There were concerns that this represented a mycotic aneurysm. He underwent laparoscopic en bloc splenic artery aneurysm resection with splenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with preoperative prophylactic balloon catheter placement.

RESULTS

His large splenic artery aneurysm was adjacent to the splenic hilum. Due to the splenic vein occlusion, there were large collateral vessels complicating the dissection. Additionally, the aneurysm had dense adhesions to the tail of the pancreas from a desmoplastic reaction. To safely remove the aneurysm, a distal pancreatectomy was included with resection of the spleen. The specimen was successfully removed intact using the laparoscopic approach. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged home on postoperative day 2. Final pathology revealed no evidence of bacterial etiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is an appropriate minimally invasive option for the treatment of splenic artery aneurysms. This video demonstrates the technical challenges and management options for successfully completing a distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy in the face of a splenic artery aneurysm.

Current status of laparoscopic surgery in gastrointestinal malignancies

Laparoscopy has become a significant tool in a surgeon's armamentarium since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1989. Oncological surgeons have been slow in adopting laparoscopy for fear of inadequate cancer operation and occurrence of port site metastasis. Neither of these concerns have stood the test of time. Laparoscopy is being used increasingly in oncological surgery both for staging and respective surgery. This article outlines the present use of laparoscopy in GI cancer surgery.