Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Research Articles

Optimal cutoff values of drain amylase for predicting pancreatic fistula are different between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Drainage fluid amylase (DFA) is useful for predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). However, difference in optimal cutoff value of DFA for predicting CR-POPF between open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP) has not been investigated. This study aimed to identify the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF after ODP and LDP. Data for 294 patients (ODP, n=127; LDP, n=167) undergoing DP at Kobe University Hospital between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize treatment selection bias. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF for ODP and LDP. Logistic regression analysis for CR-POPF was performed to investigate the diagnostic value of DFA on postoperative day (POD) three with identified cutoff value. In the matched cohort, CR-POPF rates were 24.7% and 7.9% after ODP and LDP, respectively. DFA on POD one was significantly lower after ODP than after LDP (2263U/L vs 4243U/L, p<0.001), while the difference was not significant on POD three (543U/L vs 1221U/L, p=0.171). ROC analysis revealed that the optimal cutoff value of DFA on POD one and three for predicting CR-POPF were different between ODP and LDP (ODP, 3697U/L on POD one, 1114U/L on POD three; LDP, 10564U/L on POD one, 6020U/L on POD three). Multivariate analysis showed that DFA on POD three with identified cutoff value was the independent predictor for CR-POPF both for ODP and LDP. DFA on POD three is an independent predictor for CR-POPF after both ODP and LDP. However, the optimal cutoff value for it is significantly higher after LDP than after ODP. Optimal threshold of DFA for drain removal may be different between ODP and LDP.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

International guidelines recommend monitoring of the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and in high-risk groups. Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared to LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 minutes,P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI>25kg/m2, previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with less conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Refractory postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer caused by incomplete pancreas divisum: a case report.

Pancreas divisum (PD) represents a prevalent congenital pancreatic variant, typically arising from the failure of fusion between the ventral and dorsal pancreatic ducts. This condition is frequently associated with recurrent pancreatitis. We herein present a case involving an incomplete PD diagnosis following the identification of a refractory postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic cancer. A 74-year-old female patient, who had undergone laparoscopic DP for pancreatic cancer, developed a POPF accompanied by intraabdominal bleeding, necessitating urgent intervention radiology to avert life-threatening complications. Following this, intraabdominal drainage was performed through an intraoperative drainage root. Subsequent fistulography and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography unveiled the presence of an incomplete PD for the first time. Consequently, a stent was placed in the Santorini duct. However, the volume of pancreatic juice from the intraabdominal drainage tube exhibited no reduction. Despite repeated attempts to access the pancreatic duct via a guidewire through the drainage tube, these endeavors proved futile. Paradoxically, the removal of the external drainage tube led to a recurrence of intraabdominal abscess formation. Consequently, reinsertion of the drainage tube became imperative. Consideration was given to draining the abscess under endoscopic ultrasonography and performing pancreatic duct drainage. However, due to the diminution of the abscess cavity through the external fistula drainage procedure, coupled with the absence of pancreatic duct dilation and its tortuous course, it was deemed a formidable challenge. the patient necessitated a lifestyle adaptation with a permanently placed percutaneous drainage tube.

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

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size.Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Clinical application of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in patients with situs inversus totalis.

Clinical application of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in patients with situs inversus totalis.

Short-Term Outcomes of Conventional Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Evidence from US National Inpatient Sample, 2005-2018.

The primary treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, and laparoscopic resection offers benefits over open surgery. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Data of adults ≥ 20 years old with pancreatic cancer who underwent conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were extracted from the United States (US) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2005-2018 database. Comorbidities and complications were identified through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Short-term outcomes were compared using logistic regression and included length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharge, and total hospital costs. A total of 886 patients were included; 27% received robot-assisted, and 73% received conventional laparoscopic surgery. The mean age of all patients was 65.3 years, and 52% were females. Multivariable analysis revealed that robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of perioperative complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.83) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Specifically, robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly decreased risk of VTE (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.83) and postoperative blood transfusion (aOR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23-0.61). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (0.76 days shorter, 95% CI: -1.43--0.09) but greater total hospital costs (18,284 USD greater, 95% CI: 4369.03-32,200.70) than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Despite the higher costs, robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy is associated with decreased risk of complications and shorter hospital stays than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas - technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes.

The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival. The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula. Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.

A multi-institutional randomized phase III study comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer; Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG2202 (LAPAN study)

BackgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), including laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade owing to its favorable short-term outcomes. However, evidence regarding its oncologic safety is insufficient. In March 2023, a randomized phase III study was launched in Japan to confirm the non-inferiority of overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing MIDP compared with that of patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).MethodsThis is a multi-institutional, randomized, phase III study. A total of 370 patients will be enrolled from 40 institutions within 4 years. The primary endpoint of this study is overall survival, and the secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival, proportion of patients undergoing radical resection, proportion of patients undergoing complete laparoscopic surgery, incidence of adverse surgical events, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Only a credentialed surgeon is eligible to perform both ODP and MIDP. All ODP and MIDP procedures will undergo centralized review using intraoperative photographs. The non-inferiority of MIDP to ODP in terms of overall survival will be statistically analyzed. Only if non-inferiority is confirmed will the analysis assess the superiority of MIDP over ODP.DiscussionIf our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of MIDP in terms of overall survival, it would validate its short-term advantages and establish its long-term clinical efficacy.Trial registrationThis trial is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCT 1,031,220,705 [https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1031220705].

Clamp-crushing Pancreatic Transection in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become a widely accepted procedure for tumors located in the pancreatic body or tail. However, pancreatic transection by linear stapler is generally avoided for pancreatic body tumors located above the portal vein because the surgical margin width is narrowed after taking into account the cutting allowance for insertion of the stapling device. Herein, we report a parenchymal clamp-crushing procedure that provides a sufficient surgical margin in pancreatic transection. Two patients with suspected early pancreatic cancer underwent pancreatic transection using the clamp-crushing procedure. The planned pancreatic transection line was set just to the left of the gastroduodenal artery in both cases. Robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were performed in 1 patient each. Patients were positioned supine with split legs. Parenchymal transection was performed with crushing by VIO 3 (ERBE Elektromedizin) operated in softCOAG Bipolar mode with Effect 2/modulation 50. After crushing, remnant tissue was cut in autoCUT Bipolar mode operated by VIO 3 with Effect 2/modulation 50, or cut after secured by clipping. The surgical duration was 253 and 212 minutes, and estimated blood loss was 0 and 50mL in the 2 patients, and both were discharged with uneventful courses. Pathologic examination confirmed a negative surgical margin in both patients. Clamp-crushing pancreatic transection for distal pancreatectomy might be a suitable treatment option for achieving sufficient surgical margin in pancreatic body tumors located close to the portal vein.

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis.

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Trends and disparities in access to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (midp): an eight-year analysis from the national cancer database.

Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy are becoming the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate the trends of utilization and disparities in access to minimally invasive approaches in distal pancreatectomy. We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and analyzed all the patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. Patients were divided into groups of those with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and those with laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy (MIDP = minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy). Our outcome measures were trends of MIDP and disparities in access to MIDP. Cochran Armitage trend analysis and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate outcomes. A total of 13,537 patients with distal pancreatectomy were identified in the NCDB from 2010 to 2017. 7548 (55.8%) underwent ODP, while 5989 (44.2%) underwent MIDP. The MIDP rates increased from 25% in 2010 to 52% in 2017 (p < 0.01). On regression analysis, when controlled for age, gender, diagnosis, tumor size, grade, staging, and chemoradiotherapy, African American patients were 30% less likely to undergo MIDP than White (OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 25% less likely to undergo MIDP than non-Hispanic patients OR 0.75, 95% CI [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02). Compared to Medicare/private insured patients, uninsured patients were 50% less likely to undergo MIDP (OR 0.5, 95% CI [0.4-0.7], p < 0.01). Based on the medium household income, compared to patients in the fourth quartile, patients in the third quartile OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.3-0.9], p = 0.03). Second OR 0.8, 95%CI [0.5-0.9], p < 0.01), first quartile OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01) were less likely to undergo MIPD as well. Utilization of MIDP has increased from one in every four patients in 2010 to every other patient in 2017. However, African Americans, Hispanics, the uninsured, and those from low-income quartiles are less likely to undergo MIDP. Efforts should be made to ensure access to minimally invasive approches are available to minorities.

Laparoscopic partial splenectomy in distal pancreatectomy may preserve splenic function.

Splenectomy is known to carry a risk of infection with encapsulated organisms and associated sepsis. Current Australian guidelines recommend intensive vaccination schedules and long-term antibiotic therapy. We postulate that in some clinical scenarios where distal pancreatectomy (DP) and splenectomy is being performed, a partial splenectomy is feasible. This may preserve splenic function and help retain immunocompetence. Five patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with partial splenectomy (LDPPS). The DP is performed with proximal division and resection of the splenic artery and vein. The inferior portion of the spleen is removed en bloc with the distal pancreas with ligasure and linear cutting staplers. The line of demarcation on the spleen after the division of the splenic artery identifies the portion supplied by the short gastric vessels. Temporary clamping of the short gastrics during splenic parenchymal transection reduces blood loss. All operations were completed laparoscopically and within 4 h. The pathology of resected lesions includes a serous cystadenoma, a pseudocyst, an IPMN and two small medial pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. The benign lesions involved splenic vessels at the hilum, making Kimura or Warshaw procedures untenable. No patient required blood transfusion. One patient suffered a postoperative collection consistent with postoperative pancreatic fistula requiring a drain for 10 days. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months. Following surgery, all patients had a perfused splenic remnant on imaging and benign blood films, which suggests retained splenic function. Preserving some spleen when performing distal pancreatectomy may provide long-term benefits for patients.

Autogenic splenic implantation versus splenectomy in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the distal pancreas: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RESTORE)

BackgroundThe spleen plays a significant role in the clearance of circulating microorganisms. Sequelae of splenectomy, especially immunodeficiency, can have a deleterious effect on a patient’s health and even lead to death. Hence, splenectomy should be avoided and spleen preservation during elective surgery has become a treatment goal. However, this cannot be achieved in every patient due to intraoperative technical difficulties or oncological reasons. Autogenic splenic implantation (ASI) is currently the only possible way to preserve splenic function when a splenectomy is necessary. Experience largely stems from trauma patients with a splenic rupture. Splenic immune function can be measured by the body’s clearing capacity of encapsulated bacteria. The aim of this study is to assess the splenic immune function after ASI was performed during minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy.MethodsThis is the protocol for a multicentre, randomized, open-labelled trial. Thirty participants with benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the distal pancreas requiring minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy will be allocated to either additional intraoperative ASI (intervention) or no further intervention (control). An additional 15 patients who will undergo spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy serve as the control group with normal splenic function. Six months postoperatively, after assumed restoration of splenic function, patients will be given a Salmonella typhi (Typhim Vi™) vaccine. The Salmonella typhi vaccine is a polysaccharide vaccine. The specific antibody titres immediately before and 4 to 6 weeks after vaccination will be measured. The ratio between pre- and post-vaccination antibody count is the primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measures include intraoperative details, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and morbidity.DiscussionThis study will investigate the splenic immune function of patients who undergo ASI during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. The splenic immune function will be measured using the surrogate outcome of specific antibody titre after vaccination with a Salmonella typhi vaccine. The results will reveal details about splenic function after ASI and guide further treatment options for patients when a splenectomy cannot be avoided. It might eventually lead to a new standard of care making sometimes more demanding and time-consuming spleen-preserving procedures redundant.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN10171587. Prospectively registered on 18 February 2019.

Distal pancreatectomy.

Distal pancreatectomy is astandard surgical procedure for selected benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic body or tail. Surgical resection remains the only curative option for patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Perioperative and postoperative clinical courses were retrospectively assessed in patients, who underwent distal pancreatectomy during the 2011‒2021 period. During the 2011‒2021 period, atotal of 112 distal pancreatectomies were performed. 67 patients (59.8%) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 45 patients (40.2%) open laparotomy. The conversion was necessary for 13 patients (11.6%). Distal pancreatectomies performed laparoscopically were associated more often with biochemical leak and the development of grade Bfistula, on the other hand grade Cfistula developed only in patients operated by open laparotomy (LPT). The mean operating time was slightly longer in the laparoscopic group (227.1 min vs 214.6 min). The mean estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the LPT group (540.4 ml vs 191.9 ml). The mean hospitalization time was slightly longer in the LPT group (11.8 days vs 9.3 days). The rates of early reoperations were comparable between both groups (6 vs 5). Laparoscopic techniques are preferred in centers around the world to bring patients benefits by using aminimally invasive approach. These techniques are also preferred in our center, in nearly 60% of all distal pancreatectomies performed during 10 years, but on the other hand, there is amuch more careful approach chosen in cases of malignant disease to achieve adequate radicality (Tab.4, Ref. 20).

Common Hepatic Artery Approach in Complicated Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Common Hepatic Artery Approach in Complicated Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY FOR ISOLATED PANCREATIC INJURY IN BLUNT ABDOMINAL TRAUMA – A CASE REPORT

Pancreatic injury presenting as an isolated injury in the pediatric population is rare. Unlike other solid organ injuries, these injuries may be subtle and difficult to diagnose. The management options vary from conservative management for low-grade injuries to surgical management for high-grade injuries; The optimal course of treatment is best determined by the severity of the injury and its clinical presentation. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has increasingly been described as a feasible procedure for the surgical management of such injuries.Here we present our experience with a twelve-year-old boy with epigastric pain for eighteen hours following a road traffic accident. He was hemodynamically stable with no external signs of injury, and investigations were initially normal, but later he developed leukocytosis and hyperamylasemia; a repeat contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) diagnosed an isolated grade III pancreatic injury. The case was initially managed non-operatively, but a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was later performed due to an acute abdomen caused by generalized peritonitis.Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can be a safe and valuable surgical option when the surgical approach is considered for pancreatic injury. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with an overall decrease in morbidity.

Initial Experience of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatic Resections: A Single Institution Study with Fifteen Consecutive Cases

Objective: To review the initial experience of outcomes of a consecutive series of laparoscopic distal pancreatic resections are performed at a dedicated cancer hospital. Study Design: Case series. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Surgical Oncology at Tertiary Care Hospital, from Mar 2013 to Feb 2021. Methodology: A retrospective review of consecutive series of patients in which distal laparoscopic pancreatic resections were performed. Data was collected through the Hospital information system (HIS), an electronic hospital database. All patients were discussed in a multidisciplinary team prior to surgery. Results: Fifteen patients, including 4(26.6%) males with a mean age of 49.27±15.2, were planned for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Pathologically, 12(80%) tumours were malignant, while three were benign. The procedure was converted to open in 3 patients. The mean operating time was 4.6±0.57 hours, with an estimated blood loss of around 183±28. 8mls.Mean hospital stay was 5.3±1.5 days. One patient developed a Grade A pancreatic fistula. Recurrence in the liver occurred in two patients, which was managed by systemic adjuvant therapy. However, one of them died later on because of sepsis. Conclusion: A laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a safe approach for distal pancreatic tumours, with minimal complications and fast recovery in appropriate cases.

Primary pancreatic hydatid disease: A rare presentation of echinococcosis

Hydatid disease is a zoonotic parasitic disease which rarely involves pancreas primarily. Diagnosis of pancreatic hydatid cyst is a challenge and operative skills are important to avoid spillage of cyst’s content. A 19-year-old male patient was admitted to hospital with recurrent abdominal pain which was on epigastrium and left upper quadrant of abdomen. Pain was not associated with nausea, vomiting or fever. An abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan was ordered. As a result of abdominal CT scan, there was a cystic area in tail of pancreas with a diameter of 5.6 cm which includes septa and there was calcification on borders of the cyst. Possible diagnosis were either pancreatic hydatid disease, pancreatic cyst adenoma or cystadenocarcinoma or pseudocyst of autoimmune pancreatitis. Whole body positron emission tomography (PET-CT) scan showed no other cyst or lesion other than pancreatic cyst. Hydatid disease indirect hemagglutination test has been studied and it was positive. Imaging studies and laboratory results were suggested hydatid disease and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been applied. Primary pancreatic hydatid disease should be in differential diagnosis when newly appearing pancreatic cyst has been diagnosed, especially in endemic areas. Appropriate surgical technique has to be applied to avoid dissemination of cyst’s content.

Laparoscopic radical distal pancreatectomy with portal venous tumor thrombectomy for the treatment of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Laparoscopic radical distal pancreatectomy with portal venous tumor thrombectomy for the treatment of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Yields Superior Outcomes Compared to Laparoscopic Technique: A Single Surgeon Experience of 123 Consecutive Cases.

Technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), in comparison to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), may translate to high conversion rates and morbidity. LDP and RDP procedures performed between December 2008 and January 2023 in our tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centres were analysed and compared with regard to short-term outcomes. A total of 62 consecutive LDP cases and 61 RDP cases were performed. There was more conversion to open surgeries in the laparoscopic group compared with the robotic group (21.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). The LDP group also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (43.5% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major complication or pancreatic fistular after operations (p = 0.20 and p = 0.71, respectively). For planned spleen-preserving operations, the RDP group had a shorter mean operative time (147 min vs. 194 min, p = 0.015) and a reduced total length of hospital stay compared with the LDP group (4 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.0002). The failure rate for spleen preservation was 0% in RDP and 20% (n = 5/25) in the LDP group (p = 0.009). RDP offered a better method for splenic preservation with Kimura's technique compared with LDP to avoid the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices related to ligation and division of splenic pedicles. RDP should be the standard operation for the resection of pancreatic tumours at the body and tail of the pancreas without involving the celiac axis or common hepatic artery.