Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: A meta-analysis

Vascularized Islet Transplantation as Composite Islet-Kidney Grafts with Nanoparticle-Labeled Islets in Large Animal Preclinical Transplant Models

Although there are many patients with diabetes and end-stage renal failure (DM/ESRD) who would benefit from a transplantation strategy that addresses both their ESRD and its underlying cause, current methods of islet and kidney transplantation using live donors have had only limited success. The first major obstacle is that the number of islets obtained from a live donor partial pancreatectomy is generally insufficient to cure diabetes in recipients, as large numbers of intraportally administered islets are lost due to ischemia before they are engrafted and vascularized in the recipient liver. To overcome this hurdle, we have developed a strategy to transplant islets as a vascularized graft. Autologous prevascularization of donor islets under the donor's own renal capsule prior to transplantation preserves islets and thus achieves normal glycemic control in diabetic recipients in our preclinical transplant models with a limited donor pancreas resection. In addition, from an immunological perspective, the innate tolerogenic qualities of the kidney provide immunoprotection for the engrafted, vascularized islets when they are transplanted as part of the composite islet-kidney (I-K) grafts. This "Trojan Horse" approach of transplanting a composite I-K eliminates the lengthy time which is otherwise required for vascularization of intraportally administered free islets, minimizing loss of islets to ischemic damage and facilitating the induction of tolerance. We have also recently developed a strategy to further minimize the required size of resected donor pancreas to prepare composite I-K graft using a novel, synthesized, small interfering RNA (siRNA)-nanoparticle probe. In this chapter, we introduce our living donor transplantation strategy to cure diabetic nephropathy using composite I-K graft.

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.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

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.

The treatment indication and optimal management of fluid collection after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become the standard procedure for resection of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Fluid collection (FC) at the resection margin of the pancreatic stump after LDP is a frequent radiological finding. However, there have been few treatment guidelines and the optimal management for this clinical finding is unclear. The aim of present study is to define the incidence of FC and suggest the optimal management for FC after LDP.

METHODS

A total of 1227 patients who underwent LDP between March 2005 and December 2015 were collected. FC was considered present when the longest diameter of the lesion on CT scan was > 3 cm.

RESULTS

A follow-up with at least two CT image was available for 1102 patients. Of these, 689 (62.5%) patients showed initial fluid collection (IFC) at the pancreas resection site in immediate postoperative CT. IFC (+) group had higher proportion of men, BMI, and higher rate of concomitant splenectomy than IFC (-) group. Among patients with FC after LDP, the treatment group had more frequent leukocytosis and accompanying symptoms than the observation group. Seventy-seven patients underwent therapeutic interventions for FC after LDP. Among them, 55 (71.4%) patients underwent endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastrocystostomy (EUS-GC). EUS-GC group had a higher success rate (85.6 vs. 63.6%, p < 0.033) and shorter hospital stay after the intervention (5.2 vs. 13.3 days, p < 0.001) than those who underwent other procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

High BMI, male, and concomitant splenectomy contribute to the occurrence of FC after LDP. In most cases, FC after LDP resolved spontaneously over time with observation. The patients with symptomatic FC ultimately required treatment. EUS-GC is the optimal intervention therapy for FC after LDP.

A Comparison of Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hepatic and Pancreatic Resections Among the Medicare Population

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures.

RESULTS

A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Its application for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2014, 72 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC at a single institution and were included in the study. Postoperative and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing LDP (n = 44) or ODP (n = 28) were compared.

RESULTS

LDP was associated with less blood loss (332 vs. 874 mL, p = 0.0012) and lower transfusion rates than ODP (18.2 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0495). Operative time was similar (254 vs. 266 min) for LDP and ODP; five patients (11.4 %) required conversion to ODP. Pancreatic fistulas (13.6 vs. 7.1 %) and major complications (13.6 vs. 25 %), were similar between LDP and ODP, respectively. Length of hospital stay (5.1 vs. 9.4 days, p = 0.0001) and time to initiate adjuvant therapy (69.4 vs. 95.6 days, p = 0.0441) was shorter for LDP than ODP. Tumor characteristics were similar but LDP was associated with more resected lymph nodes than ODP (25.9 vs. 12.7, p = 0.0001). One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were similar between LDP (69, 41, and 41 %, respectively) and ODP (78, 44, and 32 %, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LDP is associated with less blood loss and need for blood transfusion, shorter hospital stay, and faster time to initiate adjuvant therapy than ODP for patients with PDAC. Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival are similar between the two groups. LDP appears to be safe in the treatment of patients with PDAC.

Current status of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreatectomy

This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP), and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). Some retrospective studies comparing LPD or LDP and open procedures have demonstrated the safety and feasibility as well as the intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery of these procedures. In contrast, LCP and LTP have not been widely accepted as common laparoscopic procedures owing to their complicated reconstruction and limited indications. Nevertheless, our concise review reveals that LCP and LTP performed by expert laparoscopic surgeons can result in good short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, as surgeons' experience with laparoscopic techniques continues to grow around the world, new innovations and breakthroughs in MIPS will evolve. Well-designed and suitably powered randomized controlled trials of LPD, LDP, LCP, and LTP are now warranted to demonstrate the superiority of these procedures.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: many meta-analyses, few certainties

In recent years, an increasing of the level of evidence occurred with a significant number of meta-analyses. A question remains open: can LDP be considered the "new gold standard" for benign and malignant body-tail pancreatic disease? A systematic literature search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses published up to 2016. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the clinical safety of LDP. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate: the length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), overall postoperative morbidity and oncologic safety. Nine studies were found to be suitable for the analysis. Data regarding clinical safety were extractable in all meta-analyses but a "between study" homogeneity was available only in 7. The safety of LDP was sustained by six meta-analyses in benign/low grade of malignancy body-tail pancreatic lesions, by one in ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). LDP has a shorter LOS compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), demonstrated by three meta-analyses. Readmission rate in LDP procedures was lower than in ODP; these data are sustained by one meta-analysis. LDP is not inferior to ODP regarding the occurrence of POPF (seven meta-analyses); overall morbidity rate was lower in LDP than ODP for benign or low-grade malignant tumor. The use of the LDP in PDAC is sustained from one study. In conclusion, LDP can be considered a safe alternative to ODP. LDP could have some advantages but the data do not permit to define this procedure as the first choice or as the new gold standard.

Laparoscopic Left Pancreatectomy in the United Kingdom: Analysis of a Six-Year Experience in a Single Tertiary Center

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic techniques have been slow to establish a role in pancreatic surgery. Worldwide, laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) is gaining in popularity; however, there remains little published data from the United Kingdom.We aimed to evaluate the results of LLP performed in a single UK pancreatic unit.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLP for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas between April 2009 and April 2015 were identified. Patient records were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy was performed on 46 patients, median age, 62 years (range, 19-84). The spleen was preserved in 27 patients (93% of planned), and 6 (13%) operations were converted to open. The overall morbidity rate was 39%; 28 patients had no complications. Significant complications were seen in 7 (15%) patients; this included 3 pancreatic fistula (6.5%) and 1 mortality (2%). Median length of stay was 6 days (range, 3-28). Histology revealed 15 neuroendocrine tumors, 8 adenocarcinomas, 4 mucinous cystadenomas, 1 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, 2 metastases, and 16 other benign pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery has a low risk of significant complications. Our results offer encouragement to identify LLP as the gold standard approach for premalignant lesions. Further work should clarify the outcomes for malignant lesions.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection: Is It Really the Future?

The introduction and widespread application of minimally invasive surgery has been one of the most important innovations that radically changed the practice of surgery during the last few decades. The application to pancreatic surgery of minimally invasive approach has only recently emerged: both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be competently performed. LDP and LPD are advocated to improved perioperative outcomes, including decreased blood loss, shorter length of stay, reduced postoperative pain and expedited time to functional recovery. However, the indication to minimally invasive approach for pancreatic surgery is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. In this review, we summarize the current data on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, focusing on indication, perioperative and oncological outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis of Outcome With Experience and Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to analyze the learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in our series and review the literature on learning curves for LDP and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Learning curve analysis was performed by split group and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. The systematic review identified studies analyzing changes in outcome with experience.

RESULTS

A total of 25 resections were performed. CUSUM analysis of operative time found learning curves of 10 cases for LDP and splenectomy and 11 for LDP with splenic preservation. CUSUM analysis of blood loss showed approximately 6 cases. In the literature, values of 10 cases of LDP and approximately 7 RDP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Low numbers of LDP are required to reach proficiency in the hands of expert laparoscopic surgeons. Our results correspond with numbers quoted in the literature.

Study on laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy procedures comparing splenic vessel preservation and non-preservation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether two types of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap-SPDP) techniques are being implemented safely. The study compares the clinical outcomes from laparoscopic Warshaw operation (Lap-W) with those from laparoscopic splenic vessels preserving SPDP (Lap-SPDP-VP) and considers the role of those operations.

METHODS

On August 2013, the Warshaw technique was introduced to our institution and 17 patients with a lesion in the distal pancreas who underwent Lap-SPDP by December 2015 were enrolled. Six patients who underwent a Lap-W and 11 patients who underwent a Lap-SPDP-VP were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the Lap-W and Lap-SPDP-VP patients, the sizes of the tumors were 46.5±31.2 and 25.7±14.9 mm [Probability (P) value =0.0913)]; the operative times were 287 min (range, 225-369 min) and 280 min (range, 200-496 min); the blood loss was 95 mL (range, 50-200 mL) and 60 mL (range, 0-650 mL); the length of the postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (range, 8-43 days) and 11 days (range, 7-28 days); median follow-up was 19 months (range, 13-28 months) and 23 months (range, 6-28 months), respectively. There was no case of symptomatic spleen infarction in either group. However, partial infarctions of the spleen without symptoms were observed by computed tomography in three out of six cases (50%) in the Lap-W. No patient required reoperation and the postoperative mortality was zero in both groups. All patients were alive and recurrence-free at the end of the follow-up period. Collateral veins around the spleen developed in 83.3% (five out of six patients) in the Lap-W and developed in 12.5% (one out of eight patients) in the Lap-SPDP-VP. A significant difference was observed between groups (P=0.0256). Gastric varices developed in 33.3% (two out of six patients) in the Lap-W. However, no case of rupture of varices, or other late phase complications was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Lap-W and Lap-SPDP-VP were found to be safe and effective, and in cases in which the detachment work of the splenic vessels from the tumor or the pancreatic parenchyma is difficult, performing Lap-W, rather than Lap-SPDP-VP, is considered appropriate. While Lap-SPDP is recommended for patients with benign or low grade malignant diseases, long-term follow-up to monitor hemodynamic changes in splenogastric circulation is considered needed.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms: a two-center comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms in two institutions.

METHODS

This prospective comparative study included 91 consecutive patients who underwent LDP (n=45) or ODP (n=46) from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2012. Demographics, intra-operative characteristics, and post-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The median operating time in the LDP group was (158.7±38.3) min compared with (92.2±24.1) min in the ODP group (P<0.001). Patients had lower blood loss in LDP than in the ODP ((122.6±61.1) ml vs. (203.1±84.8) ml, P<0.001). The rates of splenic conservation between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (53.3% vs. 47.8%, P=0.35). All spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were conducted with vessel preservation. LDP also demonstrated better post-operative outcomes. The time to oral intake and normal daily activities was faster in the LDP group than in the ODP group ((1.6±0.5) d vs. (3.2±0.7) d, P<0.01; (1.8±0.4) d vs. (2.1±0.6) d, P=0.02, respectively), and the post-operative length of hospital stay in LDP was shorter than that in ODP ((7.9±3.8) d vs. (11.9±5.8) d, P=0.006). No difference in tumor size ((4.7±3.2) cm vs. (4.5±1.8) cm, P=0.77) or overall pancreatic fistula rate (15.6% vs. 19.6%, P=0.62) was found between the groups, while the overall post-operative complication rate was lower in the LDP group (26.7% vs. 47.8%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and effective for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms, featuring lower blood loss and substantially faster recovery.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer: ready for prime time?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer are being applied with increasing frequency. With support of the literature, the location of the tumor within the pancreas is the factor which determines if these techniques can be safely used routinely by pancreatic surgeons.

METHODS

Literature supporting minimally invasive techniques for all types of resections for pancreatic cancer was reviewed.

RESULTS

Multiple meta-analysis regarding laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy all support the routine use of laparoscopy for these lesions. There are several case series describing the safety and efficacious use of laparoscopy in pancreaticoduodenectomy, and results have been promising in these highly specialized centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The location of the tumor within the pancreas remains the most critical factor in the use of laparoscopy as the standard of care. Lesions in the body and tail, which are readily resected with a distal or subtotal pancreatectomy should be performed laparoscopically unless there is a clear reason why not to do so. Lesions in the head of the pancreas have been shown to be removed safely and effectively with laparoscopy. However, the technical skills necessary and the ability to teach these to trainees are the limiting factors to widespread use. Further series are necessary to assess if the laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy will play a similar role as the one it plays in the surgical treatment for distal lesions.

LDP vs ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case matched study from a single-institution

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) showed advantage of perioperation outcomes for benign and low-grade tumor of the pancreas. The application of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) didn’t gain popular acceptance and the number of LDP for PDAC remains low. We designed a case-matched study to analysis the short- and long-term outcomes of the patients undergoing either Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy for PDAC.

Method

From 2003 to 2013, 17 patients were underwent LDP and 34 patients were underwent ODP for PDAC were matched by tumor size, age and body mass index (BMI). The two groups’ demographic information, perioperative outcomes and survival data were compared.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the LDP and ODP groups. The intraoperative blood loss, first flatus, first oral intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly less in LDP group than ODP group (50 ml vs400ml, P = 0.000; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.001; 3d vs 4d, P = 0.003; 13d vs 15.5d, P = 0.022). The mean operation time, overall postoperative morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates were similar in the two groups. 5 patients (29.4 %) in LDP group and 7 patients (20.6 %) in ODP group underwent extended resections. There were no significant differences in tumor sizes (3.5 cm vs 3.9 cm, P = 0.664) and number of harvested lymph nodes (9 vs8 P = 0.534). The median overall survival for both groups was 14.0 months. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed extended resections, R1 resection, perineural invasion and tumor differentiation were associated with worse survival.

Conclusion

LDP is technically feasible and safe for PDAC in selected patients and the short-term oncologic outcomes were not inferior to ODP in this small sample study. However the long-term oncologic safety of LDP for PDAC has to be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.

Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results

Background

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy has been well described for benign pancreatic lesions, but its role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains open to debate. We report our results adopting a laparoscopic technique that obeys established oncologic principles of open distal pancreatosplenectomy.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of a prospectively kept database of 135 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy, performed across two sites in the UK and the Netherlands (07/2007–07/2015 Southampton and 10/2013–07/2015 Amsterdam). Primary outcomes were resection margin and lymph node retrieval. Secondary endpoints were other perioperative outcomes, including post-operative pancreatic fistula. Definition of radical resection was distance tumour to resection margin >1 mm. All patients underwent ‘laparoscopic radical left pancreatosplenectomy’ (LRLP) which involves ‘hanging’ the pancreas including Gerota’s fascia, followed by clockwise dissection, including formal lymphadenectomy.

Results

LRLP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed in 25 patients. Seven of the 25 patients (28 %) had extended resections, including the adrenal gland (n = 3), duodenojejunal flexure (n = 2) or transverse mesocolon (n = 3). Mean age was 68 years (54–81). Conversion rate was 0 %, mean operative time 240 min and mean blood loss 340 ml. Median intensive/high care and hospital stay were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Clavien–Dindo score 3+ complication rate was 12 % and ISGPF grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate 28 %; 90-day (or in-hospital) mortality was 0 %. The pancreatic resection margin was clear in all patients, and the posterior margin was involved (<1 mm) in 6 patients, meaning an overall R0 resection rate of 76 %. No resection margin was microscopically involved. Median nodal sample was 15 nodes (3–26). With an average follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year survival was 88 %.

Conclusions

A standardised laparoscopic approach to pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the left pancreas can be adopted safely. Our study shows that these results can be reproduced across multiple sites using the same technique.

Preservation of splenic vessels during laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy via lateral approach

Introduction

Preserving splenic vessels during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (SPDP-LA) is feasible and avoids unnecessary splenectomy.

Aim

To present our outcomes for this unique technique.

Material and methods

Between January 1998 and January 2012, 6 patients who underwent SPDP-LA for benign or low malignancy tumors in the pancreatic tail were included. Clinical characteristics as well as perioperative data were retrospectively recorded.

Results

All procedures were successful, with an average operative time of 184 min (range: 88–277 min) and average blood loss of 401.7 ml (range: 10–900 ml). The mean hospital stay was 7 days. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 2 patients but was then cured by external drainage. There was no mortality. Follow-ups were available for all patients.

Conclusions

Our experience was characterized by a lack of conversions and by acceptable rates of postoperative fistula and morbidity. The lateral approach showed beneficial results in patients without complications and short post-operative hospital stays.

Matched Case-Control Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) to treat periampullary tumors. The clinical outcomes of L-PPPD were compared with open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PPPD).

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, few studies have compared L-PPPD with O-PPPD. The safety, short-term clinical benefits, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD remain controversial.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2012, a total of 2192 patients diagnosed with periampullary tumors were treated with curative resection at our institution. Of these patients, 137 underwent a laparoscopic approach and 2055 an open technique. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for the L-PPPD group was longer than for the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was similar, as was the incidence of complications, such as pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric empting (P > 0.05). The mean number of analgesic injections administered was lower in the L-PPPD group than in the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001), and the mean duration of the postoperative hospital stays was shorter (P < 0.001). The surgical resection margins and the number of lymph nodes in the resected specimens did not differ between the 2 groups, and there was no significant difference in overall survival curves.

CONCLUSIONS

L-PPPD had the typical advantages of minimally invasive abdominal procedures, such as less pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery. It is technically safe and feasible, and has favorable oncologic outcomes in comparison with O-PPPD in patients with periampullary tumors.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Benign or Premalignant Pancreatic Lesions: Is It Really More Cost-Effective than Open Approach?

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the quality of life in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and no studies have reported a real cost-effectiveness analysis of this surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with respect to an open distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Forty-one patients who underwent a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 40 patients who underwent an open distal pancreatectomy were retrospectively studied as regards postoperative results, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Italian neutral version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C-30, version 3.0, was used to rate the quality of life.

RESULTS

Postoperative results were similar in the two groups; the only difference was that the first oral intake took place significantly earlier in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P < 0.001). Regarding quality of life, the laparoscopic approach was able to ameliorate physical functioning (P = 0.049), role functioning (P = 0.044) and cognitive functioning (P = 0.030) and reduce the sleep disturbance scale (P = 0.050). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the acceptability curve for a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than an open distal pancreatectomy when a willingness to pay above 5400 Euros/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was accepted.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the study, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be considered not only safe and feasible but also permits a better quality of life and is acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness to Italian and European health care services.

Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease: Review of the Literature

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.

Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compared laparoscopic (LWR) and open wedge resection (OWR) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

METHODS

The data of 156 consecutive GISTs patients underwent LWR or OWR between January 2006 and December 2013 were collected retrospectively. The surgical outcomes and the long-term survival rates were compared. Besides, a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. The LWR group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (67.3 vs. 142.7 ml, P < 0.001), earlier postoperative flatus (2.3 vs. 3.2 days, P < 0.001), earlier oral intake (3.2 vs. 4.1 days, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days, P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in LWR group but did not reach statistical significance (4/90, 4.4% vs. 8/66, 12.1%, P = 0.12). No significant difference was observed in 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the two groups (98.6% vs. 96.4%, P > 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed similar results except less overall complications in the LWR group (RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95, P = 0.04). And the recurrence risk was similar in two group (RR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28 to 2.27, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LWR is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for gastric GISTs compared with OWR. Moreover, LWR appears to be a preferable choice with mini-invasive benefits.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival.

RESULTS

Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for cancer: a critical review of the current literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed operative practices by offering patients procedures with reduced hospital stay and recovery compared to that of open operations. In spite of the advantages of a MIS approach, the application to pancreatectomy has only recently emerged. This review aims to analyze and discuss available comparative studies as they relate to resection techniques for treatment of malignant disease. A PubMed search was used to obtain original studies and meta-analyses relating to MIS pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2013. Several studies were identified that reported on the application of MIS specifically to the treatment of cancer, many of which were retrospective, single-institution studies. Notwithstanding an inherent selection bias, several studies suggest that MIS can provide equivalent R0 resection rates, number of lymph nodes harvested, and survival to that of open resection. Furthermore, parameters such as blood loss and length of stay are significantly reduced in patients treated with MIS. The current literature supports the conclusion that MIS is safe and effective as a treatment for cancer in well-selected patients in the hands of experienced surgeons. However, the published studies to date are observational in nature and therefore higher quality studies will be needed to support the application and generalizability of MIS in the treatment of pancreatic malignancies.

[Complications of minimally invasive pancreas resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreas resections are performed with increasing frequency for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and other benign and malignant diseases.

OBJECTIVES

This article describes the complications arising from laparoscopic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and compares them to complications arising from similar open procedures.

METHODS

Case series, reports, trials and meta-analyses were analyzed and the results are described and discussed.

RESULTS

The types and the frequencies of complications are comparable for laparoscopic and open resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The lack of the ability to perform an intraoperative examination of the pancreas to detect the tumors can be alleviated by laparoscopic ultrasound examination or in the case of tumors expressing somatostatin receptors by preoperative DOTATATE positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) scanning.

CONCLUSION

The complications arising from the resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors do not justify a recommendation for a laparoscopic or open approach.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Educating surgeons about advanced laparoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP) has been recognized worldwide as a feasible and highly beneficial procedure. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Lap-DP techniques are being implemented safely by surgeons training to perform this procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes of Lap-DP in patients operated on by the surgeon originating this procedure at our hospital (expert surgeon group [E group], n = 47) and patients operated on by surgeons training to perform this procedure (training surgeons group [T group], n = 53).

RESULTS

The median operating times for the E group and T group were 321 min (range, 150-653 min) and 314 min (range, 173-629 min), respectively; these times were not significantly different (P = 0.4769). The median blood loss in the T group (100 mL; range, 0-1950 mL) was significantly smaller than in the E group (280 mL; range, 0-1920 mL) (P = 0.0003). There were no significant intergroup differences in other operative results: combined operation ratio, spleen- and splenic vessels-preserving ratio, hand-assisted procedure ratio, and the ratio of transition to open. The frequency of pancreatic fistulas in the E group and T group was 12.8% and 16.9%, respectively; these rates were not significantly different (P = 0.5886). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other complications and reoperation rates. The median hospital stay for the E group was significantly shorter than for the T group (10 vs 13 days; P = 0.0307).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis shows that teaching safe Lap-DP techniques to surgeons is reflected in stable perioperative outcomes.

Assessing the short- and long-term outcomes after resection of benign insulinoma

BACKGROUND

Insulinoma is a rare functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) believed to have an excellent long-term outcome, but few studies have solely focused on this issue after apparently curative resection. This study aimed to assess post-operative and long-term outcomes after resection of benign insulinomas.

METHODS

From 1998 to 2013, 36 consecutive patients with insulinomas underwent surgery. Three patients had multiple endocrine neoplasia type-1 (MEN-1). Demographics, operative findings, tumour grade (2010 World Health Organization (WHO) NET classification), post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade (International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF)), complications and recurrence were analysed.

RESULTS

Eighteen (50%) had enucleation while the rest underwent pancreatic resection. The majority (86.1%) of insulinomas belonged to WHO NET grade G1. POPF occurred in 58.3% of patients while clinical fistula (ISGPF grades B and C) occurred in 19.4%. One (2.8%) patient required reoperation. The occurrence of POPF was not related to type of resection or surgical approach. There was no perioperative mortality. After a mean follow-up of 83.6 months, two patients (5.7%) developed disease recurrence at 34.4 and 131.9 months after initial surgery. No patients developed distant metastasis. The 10- and 15-year disease-free rates were 95.6 and 85.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

POPF occurred frequently and posed a significant morbidity after resection of insulinoma. However, it occurred independently of type of resection or surgical approach. Although the immediate cure rate after resection was high (100%), long-term disease recurrence in sporadic (non-MEN-1) cases was not insignificant. Regular long-term follow-up is recommended.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without preservation of spleen: a technical note

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

In this article, we describe a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Results

In the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions in surgical oncology are still not available because the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years).

Conclusions

RDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available, however this techniques is safe and reproducible by surgeons that possess adequate skills.

[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 versus open resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In past decades, laparoscopic surgery has been introduced for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Recently, additional studies comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric GISTs have been published, and an updated meta-analysis of this subject is necessary.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Comparative studies of laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric GISTs published before June 2014 were identified from databases. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to perform quality assessment and original data were extracted. The statistical software STATA (version 12.0) was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Finally, 22 studies, including a total of 1,166 cases, meet the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The operation time was similar between laparoscopic and open surgery. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic resection was associated withless blood loss (WMD = -58.91 ml; 95% CI, -84.60 to -33.22 ml; P <0.01); earlier time to flatus (WMD = -1.31 d; 95% CI, -1.56 to -1.06, P <0.01) and oral diet (WMD = -1.75 d; 95% CI, -2.12 to -1.39; P <0.01); shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.68 d; 95% CI, -4.47 to -2.88; P <0.01); and decreased overall complications (relative risk = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.89; P = 0.01). For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric GISTs is acceptable for selective patients with better short-term outcomes compared with open surgery. The long-term survival situation of patients mainly depends on the nature of tumor itself, and laparoscopic surgery was not associated with worse oncological outcomes.

Characterization of pancreatic serous cystadenoma on dual-phase multidetector computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to characterize pancreatic serous cystadenomas on dual-phase multidetector computed tomography in a surgical series.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of preoperative dual-phase multidetector computed tomographic scans from 68 patients with surgically resected and pathologically confirmed pancreatic serous cystadenomas.

RESULTS

Pancreatic serous cystadenomas were most commonly found in the tail (39%). The mean (SD) axial dimension was 4.5 (2.7) cm. A total of 36% contained internal calcifications. Dilatation of the main pancreatic duct (14%) and pancreatic parenchymal atrophy (11%) were uncommon. The mean (SD) attenuation of components with the highest attenuation was 49.1 (35.0) Hounsfield units on the arterial phase and 48.5 (33.4) Hounsfield units on the portal venous phase. Only 20% of neoplasms demonstrated "classic" morphology, as defined by multiple thin nonenhancing septations, calcifications, as well as the absence of main pancreatic duct dilatation and vascular involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 20% of surgically resected serous cystadenomas fulfilled classic morphology. Attenuation was helpful in differentiating serous cystadenomas from insulinomas and other cystic pancreatic masses, but it was not helpful in differentiation from pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Morphologic features were more helpful in differentiating serous cystadenomas from malignant masses.

Improved perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a population-based analysis

IMPORTANCE

Interest in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has grown in recent years, but currently available data are limited. Greater insight into application patterns and outcomes may be gained from a national database inquiry.

OBJECTIVES

To study trends in the use of MIDP and compare the short-term outcomes of MIDP with those of open distal pancreatectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating perioperative outcomes and hospital charge measures for distal pancreatectomy, comparing the surgical approaches and adjusting for patient- and hospital-level factors, among patients undergoing elective distal pancreatectomy from 1998 to 2009 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a 20% stratified sample of all US hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

In-hospital mortality, rates of perioperative complications and splenectomy, total charges, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 8957 distal pancreatectomies were included in this analysis, of which 382 (4.3%) were MIDPs. On a national level, this projected to 42,320 open distal pancreatectomies and 1908 MIDPs. The proportion of distal pancreatectomies performed via minimally invasive approaches tripled between 1998 and 2009, from 2.4% to 7.3%. The groups were comparable for sex and comorbidity profiles, while patients who underwent MIDP were 1.5 years older. On multivariate analysis, MIDP was associated with lower rates of overall predischarge complications, including lower incidences of postoperative infections and bleeding complications, as well as a shorter length of stay by 1.22 days. There were no differences in rates of in-hospital mortality, concomitant splenectomy, or total charges.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This population-based study of MIDP reveals that the application of this approach has tripled in practice and provides strong evidence that MIDP has evolved into a safe option in the treatment of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases.

Single-access laparoscopic subtotal spleno-pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Laparoscopic distal or subtotal pancreatectomy can be performed safely and effectively unless there is a clear reason why not to do so. With the aim of reducing postoperative trauma and improving the cosmesis, single-access laparoscopic surgery has been introduced into daily practice. We report the first case of distal single-access laparoscopic pancreasectomy for an adenocarcinoma. The procedure was carried out in 170 minutes without postoperative complications. Despite some technical difficulties, we think that a single-access laparoscopic approach could be adequate for a pancreatic resection. However, an adequate analysis of cost-effectiveness as well as regarding the reproducibility should be carried out.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single center

Pancreatic surgery was reported as early as 1898. Since then significant developments have been made in the field of pancreatic resections. In addition, advances in laparoscopic surgery in general have seen the description of this approach in pancreatic surgery with increasing frequency. Although there are no randomized controlled trials, several large series and comparative studies have reported on the short and long term outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, in the last decade published systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported on cost effectiveness and outcomes of these procedures.

Splenic vein thrombosis and pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of splenic vein thrombosis (SVT) in the splenic vein remnant following minimally invasive distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS).

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) with or without splenectomy between January 2006 and August 2012 were reviewed. Rates of SVT and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were compared in a group of patients undergoing DPS and a group having spleen-preserving DP.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients had minimally invasive DP, of whom 38 (48 per cent) developed SVT in the splenic vein remnant. DPS was associated with POPF (P = 0.001) and SVT (P < 0.001). SVT length was closely related to the amount of peripancreatic fluid collection (P = 0.025) and POPF (P = 0.045). In a comparison of splenic vessel-sacrificing, spleen-preserving DP and DPS, postoperative platelet count was significantly higher in the DPS group (P < 0.001). In addition, grade of SVT (P = 0.092) and POPF (P = 0.065) tended to be associated with DPS, suggesting that SVT may be related to both splenectomy and POPF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive DPS is associated with SVT and POPF. Preservation of the spleen should be considered when treating patients with benign and borderline malignant tumours of the distal pancreas.

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.