Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy assisted by mini-laparotomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:e98-e102. [PMID: 23752028 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182777824]

Hybrid Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy. A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid laparoscopic techniques have been proposed as a good transition from open to complete minimally invasive approach especially in complex surgical procedures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A broad search strategy with terms "laparoscopy" and "pancreatoduodenectomy" was used. Included studies were analyzed by quantitative meta-analysis using the metafor package for R software.

RESULTS

Of 655 identified articles, 627 were excluded and 28 articles fully assessed, including 14 comparative studies, 8 case series and 6 case reports. Extracted data included intraoperative variables and postoperative outcome parameters. The predefined inclusion criteria were met by 14 comparative studies, and 371 patients were pooled in the meta-analysis. Hybrid laparoscopic pacreatoduodenectomy was associated with significantly longer operative time (I² 0%, p = 0,01, Mean HPD 494,6 min, Mean OPD 421,6 min, WMD 67 min, 95% CI 14-120 min). For all other postoperative outcome parameters, no statistically significant differences were found. A nonsignificant reduction in intraoperative transfusion rate (I² 20%, p = 0,2, proportion HPD 2%, proportion OPD 1,6%, OR 0,44, 95% CI 0,16-1,27) and blood loss (I² 95%, p = 0,1, Mean HPD 397,2 ml, Mean OPD 1017,8 ml, MD - 601 ml, 95% CI - 1311-108) was observed for hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in comparison to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates significantly increased operation time for hybrid laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy. Intraoperative variables as well as postoperative parameters and major morbidity were comparable for both techniques. Overall results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the hybrid technique as a safe procedure in high-volume centers offering aspects of a safe transition to fully laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnamese patients with periampullary of Vater malignancies: A single-institution prospective study

Introduction

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically complex technique, that is being used to treat periampullary malignancy. We provide our experience with laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) with statistics on the outcomes of periampullary cancer patients.

Material and method

Thirty patients underwent surgery between June 1, 2016 and May 30, 2020, with 21 undergoing classical PD and 9 undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Prospectively gathered data on surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results are given.

Results

The median operative time was 277.5 min (range, 258.7–330 min), and the median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 319.5 mL (range, 241.2–425 mL). The rate of conversion to OPD, surgical reintervention, and mortality was 20%, 13.3%, and 10% respectively. Cumulative surgery-related morbidity was 33.4%, including bleeding (n = 4), severe POPF (n = 4), biliary fistula (n = 1), DGE (n = 2), and intestinal obstruction (n = 1). Pathologic diagnoses were AoV cancer (n = 23), distal CBD cancer (n = 4), PDAC (n = 2), and AoV NET (n = 1). The mean survival time of the LAPD group was 29.9 months. The long-term survival time of the N0 group was 36.8 months, which was significantly longer than that of the N1 group. The long-term survival times of stages I–B, II-A, and II-B were 36.9, 26.5, and 15.7 months, respectively (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

LAPD has a high rate of conversion to OPD, morbidity, and mortality. However, LPD is feasible technique for highly selected patients. Lymph node metastasis and stage of disease are the risk factors for long-term survival.

•

Most of tumours that develop in the periampullary of the Vater region are malignant.

•

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains the most challenging procedure in laparoscopic surgery with the rate of conversion to OPD, morbility, and mortality was 0–40%, 3.8%–50%, and 1.6%–8%, respectively.

•

In the first 30 cases, LAPD has a high rate of complications, conversion to OPD, and mortality. However, LAPD is feasible method and can provide acceptable oncological results with careful patient selection.

•

Experience, learning curve, and high-volume centre might have influenced the results.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

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.

Pitfalls of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to abdominal surgical procedures have provided superior outcomes when compared to the open approach and thus have become the standard of care. However, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) presents unique difficulties for both laparoscopic and robotic platforms and remains controversial. Ongoing concerns continue about the minimally invasive approach creating meaningful benefit when system-wide data may suggest MIPD results in increased morbidity and mortality during the learning curve. This treatise explores the current state of MIPD, reviewing the volume and quality of data that supports benefit while contrasting the benefits to the unique challenges associated with MIPD that may lead to unacceptable rates of complications and death. We conclude that in a handful of centers, MIPD confers an iterative but not transformative benefit. Significant barriers to the wide-spread acceptance of MIPD are apparent and persist, including: lack of high level data confirming clinical benefit, well defined patient selection criteria, formal education programs that address challenges of the learning curve, and ultimately value.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and borderline malignant periampullary disease compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for benign and borderline malignant periampullary diseases.

METHODS

Of 107 pancreaticoduodenectomy cases for non-malignant diseases from March 1993 to July 2017, 76 patients underwent OPD and 31 patients received LPD. To adjust for baseline differences and selection bias, operative outcomes and complications were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 31 patients in each group were evaluated. As a result, significant differences were observed between two groups in some aspects: mean operative time (LPD 426.8 ± 98.58 vs. OPD 355.03 ± 100.0 min, p = 0.031), estimated blood loss (LPD 477.42 ± 374.80 vs. OPD 800.00 ± 531.35 ml, p = 0.008), and postoperative hospital stay (LPD 14.74 ± 5.40 vs. OPD 23.81 ± 11.63 days, p < 0.001). The average visual analogue scores for pain observed from patients in LPD group on postoperative day (POD) 1 (4.23 ± 1.83 vs. 5.55 ± 2.50, p = 0.021) and POD 3 (3.32 ± 1.66 vs. 5.26 ± 2.76, p = 0.002) were significantly less than those from patients in OPD group, as well. There were no significant differences between groups about major complications including the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is a safe procedure and provides less postoperative pain and the shortening length of hospitalization. LPD may serve the feasible alternative approach for benign and borderline malignant periampullary disease.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in pancreatic cancer: Our initial experience

Pancreas cancer is an important cause of mortality worldwide. It has no particular symptoms, and may cause different complaints according to tumor diameter and localization. Local invasion may develop in the short term and distant metastasis may occur in vascular structures in its neighborhood. That's why, resectability rates are low at the time of diagnosis with a negative effect on survival rates. Minimally invasive surgery is being increasingly implemented in pancreas lesions owing to the positive short-term oncologic results of the technique in many other procedures. Traditionally, conventional open surgery is performed in pancreatic head tumors. As laparoscopic resection of pancreatic head cancer has serious technical difficulties and requires advanced laparoscopic experience, minimal invasive attempts in this field have not yet reached sufficient acceptance worldwide. Besides the fact that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy may provide sufficient short-term oncologic results that are comparative with open surgery, it can be implemented in selected patients in centers with advanced laparoscopic resection capacity. In this case series, we aimed to present our experience of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in pancreatic head cancer patients.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Cohort and Registry Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to appraise and to evaluate the current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy only in comparative cohort and registry studies.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising, but most data come from single-center, noncomparative series.

METHODS

Comparative cohort and registry studies on MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published before August 23, 2015 were identified systematically and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were mortality and International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

RESULTS

After screening 2293 studies, 19 comparative cohort studies (1833 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 2 original registry studies (19,996 patients) were included. For cohort studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 14. Selection bias was present for cancer diagnosis. No differences were found in mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-1.9] or POPF [(OR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3]. Publication bias was present for POPF. MIPD was associated with prolonged operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 74 minutes, 95% CI = 29-118], but lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -385 mL, 95% CI = -616 to -154), less delayed gastric emptying (OR = 0.6, 95% = CI 0.5-0.8), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3 days, 95% CI = -5 to -2). For registry studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 2.5. Mortality after MIPD was increased in low-volume hospitals (7.5% vs 3.4%; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising in comparative cohort studies, despite the presence of bias, whereas registry studies report higher mortality in low-volume centers. The introduction of MIPD should be closely monitored and probably done only within structured training programs in high-volume centers.

[Laparoscopic pancreatic resection]

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Despite being technically challenging, laparoscopic surgical procedures are increasingly being used also in pancreatic surgery. This review attempts to evaluate these procedures based on the currently available literature against the background of the high mortality of pancreatic surgery observed nationwide and the as yet unclear oncological validation of these procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Recently published retrospective cohort and register trials have evaluated not only perioperative outcome but also long-term survival after laparoscopic pancreatic resection.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions are increasingly being used for treatment of malignant tumors of the pancreas. The advantages of laparoscopy, such as less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative pain and a shorter duration of hospital stay, have all been demonstrated in retrospective trials. Equivalent long-term survival after oncological laparoscopic pancreatic surgery compared to open procedures was also observed in these trials; however, mortality even after laparoscopic pancreatic surgery was found to be significantly increased in low-volume centers. Prospective trials are still needed to prove adequate oncological treatment. Laparoskopische Verfahren haben sich in den letzten Jahren in fast allen Bereichen der Chirurgie quasi zum Standard entwickelt und werden von Patienten zunehmend nachgefragt. Die kosmetischen Ergebnisse sind deutlich besser als bei konventionellem Vorgehen und sie reduzieren unter anderem den postoperativen Schmerz, Schmerzmittelbedarf sowie den Krankenhausaufenthalt [29]. Daher ist es wenig überraschend, dass minimal-invasive Verfahren auch bei technisch hochkomplexen Eingriffen, wie z. B. am Pankreas, zunehmend eingesetzt werden. Allerdings wird ihr Einsatz hier noch immer kontrovers diskutiert.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology.

METHODS

After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts.

RESULTS

A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

While an increasing number of open procedures are now routinely performed laparoscopically or robotically, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging operations in abdomen. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current status and development of MIPD.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched to identify studies up to and including Feb 2016 using the keywords "laparoscopic", or "laparoscopy", or "hand-assisted", or "minimally invasive", or "robotic", or "da vinci" combined with "pancreaticoduodenectomy", or "duodenopancreatectomy", "Whipple", or "pancreatic resection". Articles written in English with more than 10 cases were included for review.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles representing 2209 patients were included for review. The weighted average operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 427.3 min and 289.4 mL respectively. A total of 375 patients required conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with an overall conversion rate of 17.8%. The postoperative severe complications (the Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III) occurred in 3.8%-33.0% patients, with an overall severe morbidity of 14.3%. Particularly, the overall incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 8.0%. There were 26 perioperative death cases in total, with an overall postoperative mortality rate of 2.3%. The weighted average number of collected lymph nodes was 17.9, and R0 resection ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. Comparisons between MIPD and OPD showed that MIPD increased operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss and shortened the length of hospital stay, but the overall morbidity and mortality were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD is technically feasible and safe in highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes. But concerns such as long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness analysis, and learning curve analysis should be fully demonstrated before the popularization of this challenging procedure.

Systemic Review of the Feasibility and Advantage of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is a complex procedure that needs to be performed by experienced surgeons. However, the safety and oncologic performance have not yet been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published up to March 2015. Articles written in English containing the keywords: "pancreaticoduodenectomy" or "Whipple operation" combined with "laparoscopy," "laparoscopic," "robotic," "da vinci," or "minimally invasive surgery" were selected. Furthermore, to increase the power of evidence, articles describing more than ten MIPDs were selected for this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles matched the review criteria. A total of 780 LPDs and 248 RPDs were included in the current review. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 9.1 %. The weighted average operative time was 422.6 min, and the weighted average blood loss was 321.1 mL. The weighted average number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.1, and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margins was 8.4 %. The cumulative morbidity was 35.9 %, and a pancreatic fistula was reported in 17.0 % of cases. The average length of hospital stay was 12.4 days, and the mortality rate was 2.2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, after reviewing one-thousand cases in the current literature, we conclude that MIPD offers a good perioperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome. MIPD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy in various hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeries: a single surgeon's experience

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to measure the learning curve for laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy (LCJ), to describe the technical tips and to report the follow-up data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The results of LCJ performed on 84 patients were analyzed. Patients were divided into eight groups, by surgical order. The plateau of the learning curve was defined as the period during which the operative time showed a dramatic decrease. The exact operative time was recorded using video analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the first three groups, the fourth group showed a significantly shorter LCJ time. The subsequent groups showed a plateau, indicating that there were no more significant changes in the LCJ time. After the plateau of the learning curve was reached, the average LCJ time was 27.4±4.7 minutes. Six cases of postoperative bile leakage occurred, with all occurring before the plateau of the learning curve was reached. Five of the 6 cases of bile leakage had a nondilated common bile duct.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for a surgeon experienced in laparoscopic surgery, there is a steep learning curve for the performance of LCJ. With careful video review, education of the surgical team, and various technical tips, the learning curve can be shortened. After the learning curve, experienced surgeons can perform LCJ with acceptable results.

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

With the advance of laparoscopic experiences and techniques, it is carefully regarded that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (lap-PD) is feasible and safe in managing perimapullary pancreatic pathology. Especially, laparoscopic management of remnant pancreas can be a critical step toward completeness of minimally invasive PD. According to available published reports, there is a wide range of technical differences in choosing surgical options in managing remnant pancreas after lap-PD. For the evidence-based surgical approach, it would be ideal to test potential techniques by randomized controlled trials, but, currently, it is thought to be very difficult to expect those clinical trials to be successful because there are still a lack of expert surgeons with sound surgical techniques and experience. In addition, lap-PD is so complicated and technically demanding that many surgeons are still questioning whether this surgical approach could be standardized and popular like laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, surgical options are usually chosen based on following question: (1) Is it simple? (2) Is it easy and feasible? (3) Is it secure and safe? (4) Is there any supporting scientific evidence? It would be interesting to estimate which surgical technique would be appropriate in managing remnant pancreas under these considerations. It is hoped that a well standardized multicenter-based randomized control study would be successful to test this fundamental issues based on sound surgical techniques and scientific background.

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 resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Dream or reality?

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be performed competently; however when minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches are implemented the indication is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. Nonetheless, LDP and LPD afford improved perioperative outcomes, similar to those observed when MIS is utilized for other purposes. This includes decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced post-operative pain, and expedited time to functional recovery. What then is its role for resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma? The biology of this aggressive cancer and the inherent challenge of pancreatic surgery have slowed MIS progress in this field. In general, the overall quality of evidence is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, short follow-up intervals, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Available evidence compiles heterogeneous pathologic diagnoses and is limited by case-by-case follow-up, which makes extrapolation of results difficult. Nonetheless, short-term surrogate markers of oncologic success, such as margin status and lymph node harvest, are comparable to open procedures. Unfortunately disease recurrence and long-term survival data are lacking. In this review we explore the evidence available regarding laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a promising approach for future widespread application.

Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has evolved rapidly, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been widely adopted owing to its technical complexity. Hybrid laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (HLAPD) combines the relative ease of open surgery with the benefits of a minimally invasive approach. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of the hybrid approach compared with open surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients undergoing either hybrid or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) at our institution between September 2009 and December 2013. Demographic, operative and oncologic data were collected to compare outcomes between HLAPD and OPD.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 33 patients (HLAPD: n = 13; OPD: n = 20). There were no differences in patient demographics, comorbidities or surgical indications. The HLAPD group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (450 mL v. 1000 mL, p = 0.023) and shorter length of hospital stay (8 v. 12 d, p = 0.025) than the OPD group. Duration of surgery did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no differences in postoperative analgesic requirements, Clavien grade I/II or grade III/IV complications or 90-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes showed no significant differences in tumour size, R1 resection rate or number of lymph nodes harvested.

CONCLUSION

In select patients, HLAPD is a safe and effective procedure with comparable outcomes to conventional open surgery. Wider adoption of the hybrid approach will allow a greater number of patients to benefit from a less invasive procedure while facilitating the transition toward purely minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.

[Minimally invasive pancreatic tumor surgery : oncological safety and surgical feasibility]

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Despite being technically challenging, minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery is increasingly being used to treat pancreatic diseases. Therefore, the evaluation of its oncological safety and its advantages arebecoming increasingly more important. This review focuses on these questions based on the currently available literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The technically less demanding laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been evaluated in numerous meta-analyses. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has only been reported from a few centers worldwide.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, in particular laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, is increasingly being used to treat pancreatic tumors. The advantages of laparoscopy, such as less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative pain and a shorter length of stay have all been demonstrated in large trials. However, a sufficient oncological treatment was only assessed via indirect surrogate parameters, such as the number of lymph nodes obtained and R0 resection rates; therefore, larger prospective trials are needed to prove adequate oncological treatment. To date, minimally invasive techniques should only be employed in trials on treatment of pancreatic malignancies.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures

BACKGROUND

We compared outcomes and postpancreatectomy quality of life (QOL) in paired cohorts of patients undergoing conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD).

METHODS

Comparative analysis of QOL was performed in a matched cohort of 53 patients after OPD or LAPD between 2010 and 2013. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey and the Karnofsky score were used.

RESULTS

Physical component score, mental component score, and Karnofsky scores were calculated at multiple time points for OPD (n = 25) and LAPD (n = 28). Operative times, complications, and readmission rates were equivalent. Time to starting adjuvant therapy trended toward clinical importance in LAPD (61 vs 110 days, P = .0878). Duration of stay was less in LAPD (7.10 vs 9.44 days, P = .02). LAPD had a superior QOL centered on functional status compared with OPD (physical component score 49.09 vs 38.4, P = .04; Karnofsky 92.22 vs 66.92%, P = .003). These statistical differences were not observed beyond 6 months.

CONCLUSION

LAPD provided a more favorable QOL within the first 6 months and shorter length of stay compared with conventional OPD. LAPD may serve as an alternative operative therapy to potentially minimize delays in receipt of and enhance tolerability of adjuvant therapies.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections

PURPOSE

Pancreatic surgery is technically complex and requires considerable expertise. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery adds the need for considerable experience with advanced laparoscopic techniques. Despite the technical difficulties, an increasing number of centers propagate the use of laparoscopy in pancreatic surgery over the last decade.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview of the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Larger prospective randomized studies have emerged in the subset of laparoscopic or retroperitoneoscopic surgery for acute pancreatitis, considerable single center experience has been reported for laparoscopic pancreatic tail resection, and laparoscopic pancreatic head resection, however, is still restricted to a few experienced centers worldwide.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established, in particular for the treatment of benign and premalignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. It has been shown to decrease postoperative pain, narcotic use, and length of hospital stay in larger single center experience. However, prospective trials are needed in laparoscopic resective pancreatic surgery to evaluate its advantages, safety, and efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic neoplasms and in particular in malignant pancreatic tumors.