A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

METHODS

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

CONCLUSION

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database.

BACKGROUND

Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (l-RAMPS) provides a new surgical approach for patients with pancreatic cancers of the body and tail. However, whether it can achieve comparable outcomes to the open RAMPS (o-RAMPS) remains an issue.

METHODS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of l-RAMPS, the studies in the databases of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library published before September 13, 2021 were searched and a meta-analysis was performed using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective cohorts involving 189 patients were included for final pooled analysis. There were no significant differences in the patients' operation time, intra-abdominal bleeding rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, mild morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification = 1), moderate to severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥2), overall morbidity, wound infection rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative mortality, R0 resection rate, and 2-year overall survival between the 2 approaches. Besides, l-RAMPS was associated with less blood loss (mean difference (MD) = -232.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -316.93 to -148.46, P < 0.00001) and shorter days until oral feeding (MD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.22, P = 0.006). However, the pooled analysis also indicated a significantly fewer lymph nodes dissected (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -5.59 to -0.43, P = 0.02) in l-RAMPS approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Although l-RAMPS provides similar outcomes associated with benefits of minimal invasiveness compared to o-RAMPS, it harvested significantly fewer lymph nodes which might have potentially negative influence on the patients' long-term survival. L-RAMPS is still in the infancy stage and further investigation is needed to verify its feasibility.

HOW TO PERFORM LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY USING THE CLOCKWISE TECHNIQUE

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy is currently a widely used approach for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again.

RESULTS

Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A review of recent paradigms and advances in epidemiology, clinical diagnosis and management

Pancreatic cancer is one of the dreaded malignancies for both the patient and the clinician. The five-year survival rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) is as low as 2% despite multimodality treatment even in the best hands. As per the Global Cancer Observatory of the International Agency for Research in Cancer estimates of pancreatic cancer, by 2040, a 61.7% increase is expected in the total number of cases globally. With the widespread availability of next-generation sequencing, the entire genome of the tumors is being sequenced regularly, providing insight into their pathogenesis. As invasive PDA arises from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and mucinous neoplasm and intraductal papillary neoplasm, screening for them can be beneficial as the disease is curable with resection at an early stage. Routine preoperative biliary drainage has no role in patients suffering from PDA with obstructive jaundice. If performed, metallic stents are preferred over plastic ones. Minimally invasive procedures are preferred to open procedures as they have less morbidity. The duct-to-mucosa technique for pancreaticojejunostomy is presently widely practiced. The role of intraperitoneal drains after surgery for PDA is controversial. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been proven to have a significant role both in locally advanced as well as in resectable PDA. Many new regimens and drugs have been added in the arsenal of chemoradiotherapy for metastatic disease. The roles of immunotherapy and gene therapy in PDA are being investigated. This review article is intended to improve the understanding of the readers with respect to the latest updates of PDA, which may help to trigger new research ideas and make better management decisions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to compare postoperative complications between minimally invasive and open DIStal PAnCreaTectomy (DISPACT-2 trial)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been used with increasing frequency to accelerate patient recovery. Distal pancreatectomy has an overall morbidity rate of 30%-40%. The known advantages of minimally invasive techniques must be rigorously compared with those of open surgery before they can be completely implemented into clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DISPACT-2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive (conventional laparoscopic or robotic assisted) with open distal pancreatic resection in patients undergoing elective surgery for benign as well as malign diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 294 adult patients will be preoperatively randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary hypothesis is that MIDP is non-inferior to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity expressed as the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) within 3 months after index operation, with a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 CCI points. Secondary endpoints include pancreas-specific complications, oncological safety and patient reported outcomes. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 2 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The DISPACT-2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-693/2017). Results of the primary endpoint will be available in 2024 and will be published at national and international meetings. Full results will be made available in an open access, peer-reviewed journal. The website www.dispact.de contains up-to-date information regarding the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00014011.

Variation in Hospital Utilization of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Localized Pancreatic Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for localized neoplasms has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe. However, national adoption of the technique is poorly understood. Objectives of this study were to identify factors associated with use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for localized neoplasms and assess hospital variation in MIDP utilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with pancreatic cysts, stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and stage I pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors undergoing distal pancreatectomy from the ACS NSQIP Pancreas Targeted Dataset. Factors associated with use of MIDP were identified using multivariable logistic regression and hospital-level variation was assessed.

RESULTS

Analysis included 3,059 patients at 139 hospitals. Overall, 64.5% of patients underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Patients were more likely to undergo MIDP if they had lower ASA classification (P = 0.004) or BMI ≥ 30 (P < 0.001) and less likely if they had pancreatic adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). There was notable hospital variability in utilization (range 0 to 100% of cases). Hospital-level utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy did not appear to be driven by patient selection, as hierarchical analysis demonstrated that only 1.8% of observed hospital variation was attributable to measured patient selection factors.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of MIDP for localized pancreatic neoplasms is highly variable. While some patient-level factors are associated with MIDP use, hospital adoption of MIDP appears to be the primary driver of utilization. Monitoring hospital-level use of MIDP may be a useful quality measure to monitor uptake of emerging techniques in pancreatic surgery.

A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns regarding adequate oncological outcomes and perioperative complications, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has limited generalizability. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for resectable PDAC after propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The patients who underwent MIDP and ODP for PDAC between January 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival data were collected to compare MIDP and ODP. After PSM, perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 MIDP patients were compared with 156 ODP patients for resectable PDAC after PSM. Tumor size, TNM stage, differentiation, harvested lymph nodes, and positive lymph nodes were not different except for R1 resection and lymphovascular invasion between the MIDP and ODP groups. Operation times, overall complications, POPF, and adjuvant treatment were also not different between the two groups. The MIDP group had shorter hospital stays (10.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001) and shorter interval times from surgery to adjuvant treatment (37.6 days vs 46.0 days, P = 0.002) than the ODP group. The MIDP group had better overall survival (34.9 vs 24.5 months, P = 0.012) and disease-free survival (16.2 vs 10.3 months, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has advantages with respect to postoperative hospital stay, interval between surgery, and adjuvant treatment. MIDP is associated with the possibility of improved survival rate for resectable PDAC.

Quantitative analysis of three-dimensional reconstruction data to guide the selection of methods for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To explore the risk factors of splenic vessel preservation in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and to guide with the appropriate selection of surgical methods through three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients suffering from benign or low-grade malignant tumors of pancreatic body and tail having undergone LDP in Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital from January 2014 to September 2019 were selected for quantitative analysis of the anatomical data of patients' pancreas, tumors, splenic vessels and spleens by 3D reconstruction. According to the final surgical methods, the patients were divided into the laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation (lap-SVP) group and the non-lap-SVP group. Clinical data of the two groups were compared to assess the risk factors for surgical failure of lap-SVP and logistic regression model was applied to predict the choice of surgical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients were included in the study, including 144 in the lap-SVP group and 74 in the non-lap-SVP group. Multivariate analysis confirms that large tumor volume, large contact area between the pancreas to be resected and the splenic vein, and large maximum ratio of the circumference of the splenic vessel embedded in the pancreas to be resected to the circumference of the splenic vessel are independent risk factors for surgical failure of lap-SVP (OR > 1, P < .05). The prediction accuracy of lap-SVP operation by the logistic regression reaches up to 80.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

3D reconstruction can provide essential basis for the surgical method selection of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Comparison of minimal invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single center retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was proposed a decade ago with the aim to achieve higher R0 tangential margin and radical N1 lymph node resection for left-sided pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which has been widely accepted worldwide at present. Laparoscopic RAMPS (Lap-RAMPS) has been attempted for PDAC during last several years, however, no outcomes evaluation by comparison between laparoscopic vs open RAMPS has been reported yet.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From August, 2012 to March, 2018, patients undergoing open or lap-RAMPS for the diagnosis of left-sided PDAC were reviewed from a prospective database. Patients excluded if they were related with combined organs or vessels resection, systematic metastasis as well as conversion from open RAMPS to lap RAMPS. The surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 48 PDAC patients were enrolled (25 underwent lap-RAMPS and 23 underwent open-RAMPS). There were no significant differences in demographic or perioperative morbidity. In the lap-RAMPS group, R0 transection margin and retroperitoneal margin were both achieved in 23 of 25 patients (92%). In the open RAMPS group, R0 transection margin was achieved in 21 of 23 patients (91.3%), R0 retroperitoneal margin was 22 of 23 patients (95.65%). There were no differences in pathological examinations. The number of lymph node (LN) retrieved between lap-RAMPS and open- RAMPS group was not significant difference (15.84 vs 18.22; P = 0.268). Median disease-free survival (DFS) was analogous in two groups (18.11 m vs 20.00 m, P = 0.999). Median overall survival (OS) was 24.53 m in lap-RAMPS group and 28.73 m in the open-RAMPS group (P = 0.633).

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-RAMPS is technically feasible, and has comparable long-term oncological outcome with open-RMAPS.

Laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with artery-first approach in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

An artery-first approach for pancreatic cancer (PC) is challenging to perform laparoscopically and is mainly performed using an open approach. The aims of this study were to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) with an artery-first approach (L-aRAMPS) as compared with open aRAMPS (O-aRAMPS) in resectable PC using matched-pair analysis.

METHODS

Artery-first approach is an early dissection of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) from behind the pancreas body as the first surgical step. Data on L-aRAMPS and O-aRAMPS, performed between July 2013 and November 2019, were collected retrospectively. Additionally, the spatial characteristics of the splenic artery were analyzed using computed tomography.

RESULTS

Thirty L-aRAMPS and 33 O-aRAMPS for resectable PC were included. After matching, 15 L-aRAMPS were compared with 15 O-aRAMPS. Median intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay were significantly improved in L-aRAMPS compared to O-aRAMPS (30 vs. 220 g, p < 0.001; 12 vs. 16 days, p = 0.049). The overall morbidity was similar in both study groups. The total number of lymph nodes dissected and those harvested from around the SMA and R0 resection was similar in both study groups. We classified the width of the cross section of the pancreas body into three equal parts: the upper, middle, and lower parts of the pancreas; 63% of the splenic artery origin was located in middle and lower parts of the pancreas body.

CONCLUSION

L-aRAMPS is technically safe and oncologically feasible to secure favorable surgical outcomes for resectable PC patients.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Advanced laparoscopic HPB surgery: Experience in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

The worldwide trend in surgery has moved from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Likewise, the application of minimally invasive surgery in the hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) field is also rapidly expanding. The field of HBP surgery can be divided into liver, pancreas and biliary fields. Minimally invasive liver surgery is recently developed. However, laparoscopic liver resection in difficult areas is challenging. However, with the accumulation of experiences, laparoscopic liver resection for difficult areas is performed more than before. With more propagation, more and more liver resection will be performed by laparoscopic approach. In minimally surgery for the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy has become a well-recommended procedure in benign and borderline malignancy. There have been several systemic reviews that show advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The reports on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are slowly increasing in spite of technical difficulty, with several systemic reviews showing advantages of the procedure. However, more PD will be performed as robotic-assisted procedures in the future. The laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract malignancy is still in early stages. The laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer has been contraindicated, although there have been encouraging reports from expert centers. The laparoscopic surgery for Klatskin tumor is still an experimental procedure. Robotic-assisted procedures for the surgery of cholangiocarcinoma will be the future. Robotic-assisted surgery for the HBP field is still not well-developed. However, with the necessity of more precise manipulation like intracorporeal suturing, robotic-assisted surgery will be used more often in the field of HBP surgery.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

The Value of Decision Analytical Modeling in Surgical Research: An Example of Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate how decision modeling may identify relevant uncertainty and can preclude or identify areas of future research in surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

To optimize use of research resources, a tool is needed that assists in identifying relevant uncertainties and the added value of reducing these uncertainties.

METHODS

The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (ODP) for nonmalignant lesions was modeled in a decision tree. Cost-effectiveness based on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival was analyzed. The effect of existing uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness was addressed, as well as the expected value of eliminating uncertainties.

RESULTS

Based on 29 nonrandomized studies (3.701 patients) the model shows that LDP is more cost-effective compared with ODP. Scenarios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mortality rate of 1.79 times higher after LDP as compared with ODP, conversion in 62.2%, surgically repair of incisional hernias in 21% after LDP, or an average 2.3 days longer hospital stay after LDP than after ODP. Taking all uncertainty into account, LDP remained more cost-effective. Minimizing these uncertainties did not change the outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show how decision analytical modeling can help to identify relevant uncertainty and guide decisions for future research in surgery. Based on the current available evidence, a randomized clinical trial on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival is highly unlikely to change the conclusion that LDP is more cost-effective than ODP.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC.

METHODS

This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.

RESULTS

In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Short-term surgical morbidity and mortality of distal pancreatectomy performed for benign versus malignant diseases: a NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) accounts for 25% of all pancreatic resections. Complications following DP occur in around 40% of the cases. Our aim is to analyze short-term surgical outcomes of DP based on whether the indication for resection was benign or malignant pathology, as well as the effect of the surgical approach, open versus laparoscopic on morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We studied all patients undergoing DP from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy participant use file from 2014 to 2016. The patients were divided into 2 groups, those who underwent DP for benign diseases (DP-B) and those who underwent DP for malignant diseases (DP-M). We performed multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between benign or malignant distal pancreatectomies and 30-day outcomes. We included clinically and/or statistically significant confounders into the models. We also conducted the same analysis in the subgroups of open and laparoscopic DP.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred and seventy-nine patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. The most common indication for surgery was malignant disease in 1894 (53%). Thirty-day mortality occurred in 0.4% of DP-B compared to 1.3% DP-M. On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was found in mortality or in the risk of pancreatic fistula between the 2 groups. Bleeding (p = 0.002) and composite morbidity (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the DP-M group. Among composite morbidities, thromboembolism was significantly associated with DP-M (OR 2.1, p = 0.0004) only when performed with an open approach.

CONCLUSION

DP-M is associated with a significantly higher risk of post-operative bleeding, thromboembolism, and sepsis compared to DP-B but no significant increase in mortality. When further analyzing the impact of the operative approach on morbidity, there was an increased rate of post-operative thromboembolic in the DP-M group when the surgery was performed in an open manner and this increased risk was no longer statistically significant if the DP-M was performed using a minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic surgery in pancreatic diseases: Pushing the boundaries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has expanded exponentially in the last two decades but, somehow it is limited in pancreatic surgery by virtue of the pancreas being a friable, retroperitoneal organ with difficult access and adjacent major vessels risking torrential bleed. It is thought to be unforgiving if not handled well. However, improvements in technology and surgeon's expertise have pushed the boundaries of minimal access surgery (MAS) to include pancreas in its domain. We present our series of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) with an aim to look at the feasibility and outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all LPS done at the Gastrointestinal Surgery (GIS) centre of a tertiary care Armed Forces Hospital over a period of 3 years.

RESULTS

A total of 24 LPS were done during this period. The median age of the patients was 46 years (range; 13-81). There were 14 male and 10 female patients. Nine patients had at least one co-morbidity. Three patients underwent laparoscopic lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, 4 distal pancreatectomy, 4 laparoscopic Whipples pancreaticoduodenectomy, 6 laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy, 6 laparoscopic cystogastrostomy and 1 roux en y cystojejunostomy.

CONCLUSION

LPS can be performed for almost all open pancreatic surgeries and can be done with reasonable outcomes. However, it has a steep learning curve and therefore, a hybrid approach leading to a totally laparoscopic approach may be the way forward.

Identifying Hospital Cost Savings Opportunities by Optimizing Surgical Approach for Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The economic implications of relevant clinicopathologic factors on the surgical approach to distal pancreatectomy (DP) should be clearly defined and understood to potentially allow the implementation of cost reduction strategies.

METHODS

Administrative and clinical datasets of patients undergoing a DP between 2012 and 2016 were merged and queried. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinicopathologic predictors of cost differentials for minimally invasive DP (MIDP) relative to open DP (ODP). Time trends in cost were also assessed to identify opportunities for cost containment.

RESULTS

Among two hundred and twenty five patients, 128 underwent an ODP (57%) and 97 a MIDP (43%). The DP groups were comparable with regard to relevant perioperative and disease characteristics. Total hospitalization and total OR costs for MIDP were significantly lower (- 12%, P = 0.0048) and higher (+ 16%, P < 0.0001) respectively, compared to ODP. On univariate analysis, age > 60 (- 12%, P = 0.0262), BMI > 25 (- 10%, P = 0.0222), ASA class ≥ 3 (- 11%, P = 0.0045), OpTime > 230 min (- 16%, P = 0.0004), and T stage ≥ 3 (- 8%, P = 0.0452) were associated with decreased total costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Linear regression analysis revealed that BMI > 25 (Estimate - 0.31, SE 0.15, P = 0.0482), ASA class ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.36, SE 0.17, P = 0.0344), and T stage ≥ 3 (Estimate - 0.57, SE 0.26, P = 0.0320) were associated with decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP compared to ODP. Overtime, total hospitalization cost for MIDP increased from - 21 to 1% (P = 0.0197), while OR costs for MIDP decreased from + 41% to - 2% (P = 0.0049), nearly equalizing the cost differences between ODP and MIDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant clinicopathologic factors predicted decreased hospitalization costs after MIDP relative to ODP. In equivalent stages of disease, optimizing the surgical approach to DP based on specific clinicopathologic characteristics may afford significant cost-saving opportunities.

Laparoscopic approach of the left side of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) is an increasingly used surgical technique for the treatment of benign and malignant lesions of the left side of the pancreas. The results of LLP as a treatment for primary pancreatic lesions of the head and tail of the pancreas were evaluated.

METHODS

From November 2011 to November 2017, 18 patients underwent surgery for primary lesions of the pancreas by means of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. An intra-abdominal drain tube was used in all cases, and the recommendations of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) were followed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.5years (IQR 46-74). Among the 18 left pancreatectomies performed, four were with splenic preservation, and one was a central pancreatectomy. There were two conversions. The median surgical time was 247.5minutes (IQR 242-275). The median postoperative hospital stay was 7days (IQR 6-8). After 90days, complications were detected in five patients: three gradeII, one gradeIII and one gradeV according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification. There was one gradeB pancreatic fistula, and four patients had to be readmitted to hospital because of peripancreatic collections. The anatomic pathology diagnosis was malignant neoplasm in 38.9% of cases, all of them with negative resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

LLP can be considered the technique of choice in the treatment of primary benign pancreatic lesions and an alternative to the open approach in selected patients diagnosed with malignant pancreatic lesions.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: patients' interest should be the goal of health care

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the fourth deadliest malignancy in developed countries and is predicted to become the second one within the 2030. The present work focuses on the state of the art of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, including results of recent randomized trials, and discusses technical challenge and patients' interest of this technique.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: better than open?

Distal pancreatectomy is well suited to the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides the same postoperative recovery advantages reputed to minimal access surgery. However, there have been fears as to the safety of LDP in terms of life-threatening intra-operative events and post-operative complications, adequate carcinological outcomes as compared to traditional (open) distal pancreatectomy (ODP) when performed for cancer, as well as to whether the laparoscopic approach is well adapted to the variety of diseases that may affect the pancreas (ranging from trauma to benign or malignant disease) and whether the minimal access approach is well adapted to perform pancreatic surgery safely in the obese, the elderly or the frail. In this review of the literature, we sought to determine whether LDP was as safe, provided the same oncological outcomes and was applicable to all diseases involving the body and tail of the pancreas, and to particular patient characteristics, compared to the traditional open approach. Last we looked at cost issues. We concluded that this review of the literature allowed to state that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe for a wide range of diseases, both benign and malignant. Morbidity, mortality, and probably, also, carcinological outcomes are comparable to open surgery. The overall costs are similar but the advantages of minimal access surgery make it the preferred approach, once the surgical expertise is acquired and present.

Benign Tumors of the Pancreas-Radical Surgery Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Local Resection-the Challenge Facing Surgeons

Pancreaticoduodenectomy and left-sided pancreatectomy are the surgical treatment standards for tumors of the pancreas. Surgeons, who are requested to treat patients with benign tumors, using standard oncological resections, face the challenge of sacrificing pancreatic and extra-pancreatic tissue. Tumor enucleation, pancreatic middle segment resection and local, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections are surgical procedures increasingly used as alternative treatment modalities compared to classical pancreatic resections. Use of local resection procedures for cystic neoplasms and neuro-endocrine tumors of the pancreas (panNETs) is associated with an improvement of procedure-related morbidity, when compared to classical Whipple OP (PD) and left-sided pancreatectomy (LP). The procedure-related advantages are a 90-day mortality below 1% and a low level of POPF B+C rates. Most importantly, the long-term benefits of the use of local surgical procedures are the preservation of the endocrine and exocrine pancreatic functions. PD performed for benign tumors on preoperative normo-glycemic patients is followed by the postoperative development of new onset of diabetes mellitus (NODM) in 4 to 24% of patients, measured by fasting blood glucose and/or oral/intravenous glucose tolerance test, according to the criteria of the international consensus guidelines. Persistence of new diabetes mellitus during the long-term follow-up after PD for benign tumors is observed in 14.5% of cases and after surgery for malignant tumors in 15.5%. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after PD is found in the long-term follow-up for benign tumors in 25% and for malignant tumors in 49%. Following LP, 14-31% of patients experience postoperatively NODM; many of the patients subsequently change to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). The decision-making for cystic neoplasms and panNETs of the pancreas should be guided by the low surgical risk and the preservation of pancreatic metabolic functions when undergoing a limited, local, tissue-sparing procedure.

Early postoperative and late metabolic morbidity after pancreatic resections: An old and new challenge for surgeons - A review

The metrics for measuring early postoperative morbidity after resection of pancreatic neoplastic tumors are overall morbidity, severe surgery-related morbidity, frequency of reoperation and reintervention, in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Thirty-day readmission after discharge is additionally an indispensable criterion to assess quality of surgery. The metrics for surgery-associated long-term results after pancreatic resections are survival times, new onset of diabetes (DM), impaired glucose tolerance, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, body mass index and GI motility dysfunctions. Following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) performed on pancreatic normo-glycemic patients for malignant and benign tumors, 4-30% develop postoperative new onset of diabetes. Long-term persistence of diabetes mellitus is observed after surgery for benign tumors in 14% and in 15.5% of patients after cancer resection. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after PD is observed in the early postoperative period in 23-80% of patients. Persistence of exocrine dysfunctions exists in 25% and 49% of patients. Following left-sided pancreatic resection, new onset DM is observed in 14% of cases; an exocrine insufficiency persisting in the long-term outcome is observed in 16-28% of patients.

Surgical resection of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (pNETs) by minimally invasive surgery: the laparoscopic approach

Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (pNETs) are a rare group of neoplasms that originate from the endocrine portion of the pancreas. Tumors that either secrete or do not secrete compounds, resulting in symptoms, can be classified as functioning and non-functioning pNETs, respectively. The prevalence of such tumors has recently increased due to the use of more sensitive imaging techniques, such as multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound. The biological behavior of pNETs varies widely from indolent, well-differentiated tumors to those that are far more aggressive. The most effective and radical treatment for pNETs is surgical resection. Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy, with laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) emerging as an alternative to open pancreatic surgery (OPS) in patients with pNETs. Non-comparative studies have shown that LPS is safe and effective. In well-selected groups of patients with pancreatic lesions, LPS was found to results in good perioperative outcomes, including reduced intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, time to recovery, and length of hospital stay. Despite the encouraging results of studies from highly specialized centers with extensive experience, no randomized trials to date have conclusively validated these findings. Indications for minimally invasive LPS for patients with pNETs remain unclear. This review presents the current state of LPS for pNETs.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer Provides Oncologic Outcomes and Overall Survival Identical to Open Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to provide short-term clinical outcomes similar to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for patients with benign tumors. Our aim was to better define oncologic outcomes and long-term survival profiles following LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with pathologic stage I-III PDAC who underwent distal pancreatectomy between 2010 and 2013. Logistic regression was performed to examine predictors of oncologic outcomes. Cox modeling was used for survival analysis and to estimate median overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing LDP and ODP demonstrated identical probabilities of an adequate lymph node sampling and 90-day mortality. Those undergoing LDP demonstrated an increased probability of margin-negative resection (OR 1.78, CI 1.25-2.52) and a decreased probability of a prolonged hospital stay (OR 0.55, CI 0.32-0.95) or readmission (OR 0.56, CI 0.33-0.95) relative to those undergoing ODP. There was no difference in OS between groups (29.6 vs. 23.8 months, p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

LDP is an effective modality for managing resectable cancer in the pancreatic body and tail. LDP provides short-term oncologic outcomes and long-term OS rates identical to those for ODP while affording an accelerated recovery.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy may yield short-term benefits, but has not been investigated in a randomized trial. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for short-term outcomes in a randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with periampullary cancers were randomized to either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy. The outcomes evaluated were hospital stay (primary outcome), and blood loss, radicality of surgery, duration of operation and complication rate (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Of 268 patients, 64 who met the eligibility criteria were randomized, 32 to each group. The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was longer for open pancreaticoduodenectomy than for laparoscopy (13 (range 6-30) versus 7 (5-52) days respectively; P = 0·001). Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopy group. Blood loss was significantly greater in the open group (mean(s.d.) 401(46) versus 250(22) ml; P < 0·001). Number of nodes retrieved and R0 rate were similar in the two groups. There was no difference between the open and laparoscopic groups in delayed gastric emptying (7 of 32 versus 5 of 32), pancreatic fistula (6 of 32 versus 5 of 32) or postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (4 of 32 versus 3 of 32). Overall complications (defined according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) were similar (10 of 32 versus 8 of 32). There was one death in each group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy offered a shorter hospital stay than open pancreatoduodenectomy in this randomized trial. Registration number: NCT02081131( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes between Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: an Analysis of 1815 Patients from the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-Targeted Pancreatectomy Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is gaining acceptance for distal pancreatectomy (DP). Nevertheless, no multi-institutional data exist to demonstrate the ideal clinical circumstances for use and the efficacy of the robot compared to the open or laparoscopic techniques, in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The 2014 ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy data for patients undergoing DP were analyzed. Demographics and clinicopathological and perioperative variables were compared between the three approaches. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred fifteen DPs comprised 921 open distal pancreatectomies (ODPs), 694 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDPs), and 200 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDPs). The three groups were comparable with respect to demographics, ASA score, relevant comorbidities, and malignant histology subtype. Compared to the ODP group, patients undergoing RDP had lower T-stages of disease (P = 0.0192), longer operations (P = 0.0030), shorter hospital stays (P < 0.0001), and lower postoperative 30-day morbidity (P = 0.0476). Compared to the LDP group, RDPs were longer operations (P < 0.0001) but required fewer concomitant vascular resections (P = 0.0487) and conversions to open surgery (P = 0.0068). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.0236), malignant histology (P = 0.0124), pancreatic reconstruction (P = 0.0006), and vascular resection (P = 0.0008) were the strongest predictors of performing an ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

The open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy offer particular advantages for well-selected patients and specific clinicopathological contexts; therefore, clearly demonstrating the most suitable use and superiority of one technique over another remains challenging.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for pancreatic cystic tumors]

BACKGROUND

The indications for resection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are often complex and the operative risk has to be balanced against the risk of malignant transformation. The aim of the study was to provide a synopsis of the current treatment results of minimally invasive surgery for PCL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline database (PubMed). Subsequently, the retrieved literature was selectively reviewed.

RESULTS

No published prospective randomized controlled trials have yet addressed the comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery of PCL; however, retrospective case studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and a comparable morbidity after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP), pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), central (CP) or total pancreatectomy and enucleation. Whereas most DPs are performed laparoscopically, the experience of minimally invasive PD has been consolidated for the robot-assisted approach but is concentrated in only a few centers. The number of published reports on minimally invasive organ-sparing pancreas procedures (e. g. CP or enucleation) for PCL is scarce; however, the available (selected) results are promising.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery for PCL has the potential to reduce the operative trauma to the patients, while at the same time causing comparable or less morbidity. This requires an increasing specialization of complex minimally invasive resections. The clinical use of robotic systems will grow for the latter cases. A prospective registry of the results should be mandatory for quality management.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a large single-center study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) account for 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. Nonfunctioning PNETs (NF-PNETs) account for 60-90% of all PNETs. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is becoming the treatment of choice for benign lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, LDP has not yet been widely accepted as the gold standard for NF-PNETs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for NF-PNETs.

METHODS

Between April 1995 and September 2016, 94 patients with NF-PNETs underwent open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy at Samsung Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent LDP and those who underwent ODP. Both groups were compared in terms of clinical and oncologic variables.

RESULTS

LDP patients had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared with ODP patients, amounting to a mean difference of 2 days (p < 0.001). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the ODP and LDP groups (p = 0.379). The 3-year overall survival rates in the ODP and LDP groups were 93.7 and 100%, respectively (p = 0.069).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, LDP for NF-PNETs had similar oncologic outcomes compared with ODP. In addition, LDP was associated with a shorter hospital stay compared with ODP. Therefore, LDP is a safe and effective procedure for patients with NF-PNETs. A multicenter study and a randomized controlled trial are needed to better assess the clinical and oncologic outcomes.

The Largest European Single-Center Experience: 300 Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) has become routine, large single-center series are still lacking. Our aim was to analyze the results of a large European single-center series of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Between January 2008 and September 2015, 300 LPRs were performed and studied prospectively, including 165 (55%) distal pancreatectomies, 68 (23%) pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs), 30 (10%) enucleations, 35 (11%) central pancreatectomies, and 2 (1%) total pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

Mean age was 54 ± 15.4 years old (range 17 to 87 years), and most patients were women (58%). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed for malignancy (46%), low potential malignant (44%), or benign (10%) diseases. The mean operative durations were 211 ± 102 minutes (range 30 to 540 minutes) for the entire population and 351 ± 59 minutes (range 240 to 540 minutes) for PD, and decreased with the learning curve. Mean blood loss was 229 ± 269 mL (range 0 to 1,500 mL), and 13 patients (4%) received transfusions. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 12 patients (4%), and only 5 in the last 250 patients (14% vs 2%; p < 0.001). Mortality occurred in 4 (1.3%) patients and only after PD (5.8%). Common complications were pancreatic fistula (n = 124, 41%), bleeding (n = 35, 12%), and reoperation (n = 28, 9%). The postoperative outcomes were less favorable in procedures with a reconstruction phase (n = 105) than in those without (n = 195), with increased mortality (3.8% vs 0%; p = 0.04), overall morbidity (76% vs % 52%; p < 0.001), and mean hospital stay (26 ± 15 days vs 16 ± 10 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection without a reconstruction phase has excellent outcomes; LPR with a reconstruction phase, especially PD, has less favorable outcomes, and further randomized studies are required to draw conclusions on the safety and benefits of this approach.