Invasive Pancreatic Resection Research Articles

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context. All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included. Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group. Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic cancer surgery

SummaryThis literature review reflects the present evidence on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, differentiating between distal pancreatic resection and pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The review analyzed studies comparing minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the WHO Trial Register according to the following MeSH search strategy: MeSH items: pancreatic surgery, minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, pancreatoduodenectomy, and distal pancreatic resection. In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MI-DP) has been shown to result in shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and better quality of life than open distal resection (ODP) with similar morbidity and mortality. Meta-analyses have suggested similar oncological outcomes between the two approaches. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MI-PD) has been shown to offer advantages over open surgery, including shorter length of stay and less blood loss, by expert surgeons in several studies. However, these studies also reported longer operative times. As the procedure is technically demanding, only highly experienced pancreatic surgeons have performed MI-PD in most studies, so far limiting widespread recommendations. In addition, selection of cases for minimally invasive operations might currently influence the results. Registry studies from dedicated groups such as the European Consortium on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) and randomized controlled trials currently recruiting (DIPLOMA‑1 and 2, DISPACT-2) will bring more reliable data in the coming years. In conclusion, both MI-DP and MI-PD have shown some advantages over open surgery in terms of shorter hospital stays and reduced blood loss, but their effectiveness in terms of oncological outcomes is uncertain due to limited evidence. The study highlights the need for further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and registry studies to further evaluate the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections.

Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection

BackgroundThe procedure of total duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHRt) has been reported frequently, but rare in minimally invasive procedure, especially robotic-assisted operation. Here we share our experience and analyze the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DPPHRt in the treatment of benign lesions or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic head in this study.Materials and methodsFrom October 2016 to January 2022, three patients received robot-assisted DPPHRt(RA-DPPHRt), and seventeen patients received laparoscopic DPPHRt(LDPPHRt). Data were retrospectively collected in terms of demographic characteristics (age, gender, body mass index, and pathological diagnosis), intraoperative variables (operative time, estimated blood loss), and post-operative variables (post-operative hospital stay, and complications).ResultsAll 20 patients received minimally invasive total duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection successfully without conversion, including 8 males and 12 females. Pathological diagnosis suggested 1 case of serous cystadenoma (SCA), 4 cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) ,5 cases of mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN), 4 cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNET), 2 cases of chronic pancreatitis (CP),4 case of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT). The average operation time was (285.35 ± 95.13 min), ranging from 95 to 420 min. The average estimate blood loss was (196.50 ± 174.45ml) ,ranging from 10 to 600ml.The average post-operative hospital stay was(20.90 ± 14.44days),ranging from 8 to 54 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 patients (50%). A total of 5 patients (20%) suffered grade B or C pancreatic fistula. Two patients (10%) suffered from biliary fistula. Two patients (10%) suffered from delayed gastric emptying. One patient (5%) suffered from abdominal bleeding. The 90-day mortality was 0. No patient was observed tumor recurrence and new-onset diabetes but one developed diarrhea.ConclusionRA-DPPHRt or LDPPHRt provided a minimally invasive approach with good organ-preservation for patients with benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic head tumor. It is only recommended to be performed in high-volume pancreatic centers by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

A narrative review of the history and recent advances in minimally invasive pancreatic resection

Pancreatic resections are complex operations that carry the potential for long-term and life-threatening complications. Over the past several decades, improved surgical techniques and perioperative care have decreased the morbidity and mortality associated with these operations. As laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery has been increasingly used in other specialties, the role of minimally invasive techniques in pancreatic surgery remains unclear. We aimed to review the evolution of pancreatic surgery and summarize current data comparing outcomes between open and minimally invasive pancreatic techniques. A comprehensive review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed with the search dates of January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2023. In PubMed, the terms “pancreas”, “minimally invasive surgery”, and “robotic surgery” were searched. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with decreased length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss with similar morbidity and mortality when compared to open DP. While randomized data supports decreased length of stay for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), the LEOPARD 2 trial was terminated early due to increased mortality among patients undergoing laparoscopic PD. Minimally invasive DP appears safe and efficacious compared to open surgery, whereas additional ongoing randomized studies from experienced centers are needed to determine the role of minimally invasive surgery for PD.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BackgroundThe systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.MethodThe MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.ResultsTwenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD − 0.13; 95% CI − 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.ConclusionMinimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

How to implement minimally invasive duodenum-preserving total pancreatic head resection for patients with pancreatic head lesions: A retrospective study.

Laparoscopic duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (LDPPHR) has been widely reported. However, due to the challenges involved in performing total pancreatic head resection during operation, there are few studies reporting it. Between November 2016 and October 2022, we performed laparoscopic duodenum-preserving total pancreatic head resection (LDPPHRt) on 64 patients in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University. Perioperative data of the patients such as age, gender, body mass index, operation time, blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were collected and analyzed. This study included 40 women and 24 men aged 41.4 ± 15.7 years. All patients completed the surgery, and none of the patients underwent laparotomy. The average operation time was 275 (255, 310) min. The average postoperative hospital stay was 12 (10, 16) days. The rate of occurrence of pancreatic fistula was 10.9% (7/64), and that of the biliary fistula was 9.4% (6/64). One of the patients underwent cholangiojejunostomy 3 months after the operation due to painless jaundice and bile duct dilatation. By dissecting the space between the pancreatic head and duodenum, the posterior pancreatic duodenal arterial arch and the surface vascular network of the common bile duct (CBD) can be preserved. This ensures the success of LDPPHRt and avoids postoperative complications in the absence of intraoperative image guidance.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Changing trends in the minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a debilitating pancreatic inflammatory disease characterized by intractable pain resulting in poor quality of life. Conventional management of pancreatic pain consists of a step-up approach with medications and lifestyle modifications followed by endoscopic intervention. Traditionally surgery is reserved for patients who do not improve with other interventions. However, recent studies suggest that early surgical intervention is more beneficial as it can mitigate the progression of the pathological process and prevent loss of pancreatic function. Despite the widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches in various gastrointestinal surgical disorders, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is slow to evolve. Technical difficulty due to severe inflammatory changes has been the major impediment to the widespread usage of minimally invasive surgery in chronic pancreatitis. With this background, the present review aimed to critically analyze the available evidence on the minimally invasive treatment of chronic pancreatitis. A Pub Med search of all relevant articles was performed using the appropriate keywords, parentheses, and Boolean operators. Most initial laparoscopic series have reported the feasibility of lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, considered an adequate procedure only in a small proportion of patients. The pancreatic head is the pacemaker of pain, so adequate decompression is critical for long-term pain relief. Recent studies have documented the feasibility of minimally invasive duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection. With improvements in laparoscopic instrumentation and technological advances, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is gaining momentum. However, more high-quality evidence is required to document the superiority of minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis.

1191 Prospective Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections (MIPR) from the IGOMIPS Registry: A Snapshot of Daily Practice in Italy between 2019 and 2022

1191 Prospective Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections (MIPR) from the IGOMIPS Registry: A Snapshot of Daily Practice in Italy between 2019 and 2022

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BackgroundMany centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.MethodsSingle center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010–February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.ResultsAmong 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100–500] to 150 ml [IQR 50–300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).ConclusionThe introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.Graphical

A chronicle of the pancreatoduodenectomy technique development – from the surgeon’s hand to the robotic arm

Background Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal surgical procedures. Methods A review of the literature regarding the history of PD, starting from the pioneers, Walter Kausch and Alan Whipple, through the great surgeons of the last century, up to the present day. Results The greatest development of the PD technique took place at the end of the twentieth century. Over the last 40 years, there have been huge technological advances in medicine, which have resulted in the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques for abdominal surgery. However, it turns out that PD is still performed as it used to be "by the surgeon’s hand" via laparotomy rather than using the most modern robot or laparoscope and is currently recommended by experts for treatment of pancreatic head cancer (PHC). This is mainly caused by not many data comparing these three PD methods. Moreover, increasingly the results achieved by surgeons advanced in minimally invasive pancreatic resections are comparable to or even better than those achieved by the open method in reference centres. Robot-assisted PD appears to be gaining an advantage over laparoscopic technique in the efficacy of PHC treatment. The obstacles most inhibiting the use of surgical robotics are the high cost of the device and procedure, and the long learning curve. A bright future lies ahead for both methods, with the robotic technique in the forefront. Conclusions Despite significant advances in access and surgical technique, PD remains a challenging surgical procedure requiring a big surgeon’s experience.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training.

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing. We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions. Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented. Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer-are we there yet?-a narrative review.

The aim of this review article is to evaluate the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), in light of the present evidence. Published data, largely in the form of retrospective studies and a few prospective/randomized controlled trials have confirmed feasibility, safety, and equivalent short-term outcomes of MIPR in experienced hands. Hence, several recent evidence-based international consensus guidelines have stated MIPR to be at par with the open approach, when these surgeries are performed at high-volume centers. However, longer operative duration, high conversion rates, inferior oncological outcomes, and increased mortality reported in low-volume centers, especially during minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy remains a matter of concern, questioning its broad applicability. Hence, distal pancreatic resections are adopted more widely with a minimally invasive approach as compared to pancreatic head resections. Also, MIPR for PDAC in particular, remains controversial due to lack of high quality data evaluating long-term outcomes of MIPR for PDAC alone. Considering the ongoing impact of neoadjuvant treatment on pancreatic cancer surgery and the corresponding increase in vascular resections and arterial divestment procedures, applicability of MIPR in this setting remains questionable. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and various international evidence-based guidelines were searched for the current status of minimally invasive resections for pancreatic cancer (PDAC). The available evidence establishes the feasibility and safety of MIPR, however for PDAC the widespread application remains controversial owing to a dearth of literature evaluating the long-term outcomes. Apart from the outcomes, establishing the exact indications, appropriate patient selection, enhanced cost, and learning curve issues need further studies.

Single-Center Experience of 500+ Minimally Invasive Pancreatic and Liver Resections: Insights into Implementing a MIS-HPB Practice

Background: Minimally invasive, robotic and laparoscopic, HPB surgery (MIS-HPB) is increasingly being implemented. This study aimed to provide insights into implementation and outcome of MIS-HPB in a single high-volume center.

低悪性度膵腫瘍に対する低侵襲膵切除術

低悪性度膵腫瘍に対する低侵襲膵切除術

本邦における低侵襲膵切除術の現状と今後の課題

本邦における低侵襲膵切除術の現状と今後の課題

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection in the light of evidence state of the art.

The trend of minimally invasive surgery expands even into the most technically demanding areas, including HPB surgery. Faster recovery and elimination of surgical site infections achieved with a minimally invasive approach provides, in addition to a better quality of life, the possibility of starting adjuvant treatment earlier. However, evidence of non-inferiority of short-term and oncological results compared to open surgery is required. In minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it as the method of choice for benign tumors and low-grade malignancies. For pancreatic cancer, the long-term results so far appear to be equivalent, although this still needs to be confirmed by ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCT). Enucleation of accessible lesions is also a suitable procedure for the minimally invasive approach. In contrast, in pancreaticoduodenectomy, available evidence does not demonstrate a clear benefit of the minimally invasive approach. Safety concerns still remain, and not even formal training has been successful in eliminating the consequences of the long learning curve for perioperative outcomes. Robotic approach appears to be more promising than laparoscopy for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Key words: pancreaticoduodenectomy distal pancreatectomy minimally invasive - laparoscopic robotic.

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

Introduction:Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.Methods:Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification.Results:Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).Conclusion:Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

ASO Visual Abstract: The Landmark Series—Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection

ASO Visual Abstract: The Landmark Series—Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection