Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Research Articles

Oncological Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ductal Adenocarcinomas of Pancreatic Head: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have been shown to be safe and feasible, but there is still a lack of high-level evidence on oncological outcomes for cephalic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing MIPR and open pancreatic resection (OPR) for pancreatic head cancer in a single high-volume center. Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent radical-intent surgery for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC of the head at our institution between January 2013 and May 2023 were retrieved and analyzed, comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPR and OPR, using a propensity score matching analysis. In the study period, 220 patients were selected. After matching, a total of 81 MIPRs and 81 OPRs were compared. No difference was found regarding R0 rate (OPR 83.9% vs. MIPR 74.1%, p = 0.122). Median overall survival (24 and 31 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.665) and disease-free survival (12 and 21 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.118) did not differ between the groups. The MIPR group was associated with a greater number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs. 16, p = 0.0008), longer operative time (565 vs. 420 min, p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (12 vs. 18 days; p = 0.0001). No differences between the groups were found regarding all other postoperative and pathological outcomes. Regarding oncological outcomes, MIPR appeared to be comparable to OPR for treating patients with PDAC of the head. Despite an increased operative time, MIPR was associated with a greater number of LNs harvested and a shorter length of stay.

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.

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.

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

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal malignancy of the digestive organs. Although pancreatic resection is essential to radically cure this refractory disease, the multi-organ resection involved, as well as sequelae such as glucose tolerance insufficiency and severe complications impose a heavy burden on these patients. Since the late twentieth century, minimally invasive surgery has become more popular for the surgical management of digestive disease and pancreatic cancer. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR), including pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, is now a treatment option for pancreatic cancer. Some evidence suggests that MIPR for pancreatic cancer provides comparable oncological outcomes to open surgery, with some advantages in perioperative outcomes. However, as this evidence is retrospective, prospective investigations, including randomized controlled trials, are necessary. Because neoadjuvant therapy for resectable or borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer and conversion surgery for initially unresectable pancreatic cancer has become more common, the feasibility of MIPR after neoadjuvant therapy or as conversion surgery requires further assessment. It is expected that progress in surgical techniques and devices, as well as the standardization of surgical procedures and widespread educational programs will improve the outcomes of MIPR.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection

Background: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow and the worldwide utilization and attitudes towards MIPR remain unknown. Methods: We developed an anonymous online survey (61 questions) in order to gain knowledge on opinions and use of both, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pancreatic resections. The survey was sent to all surgeon members of the 6 largest hepato-pancreato-biliary associations. Results: In total, 435 surgeons from 50 countries completed the survey. Responders performed a median of 22(IQR:0-450) pancreatic resections as primary surgeon annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345(79%) surgeons with a total median experience of 20(IQR:10-50) MIDPs. Of surgeons performing MIDP, 338(98%) surgeons considered the overall value of MIDP superior or equivalent to the open approach. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) was performed by 124(29%) surgeons with a total median experience of 12(IQR:4-40) MIPDs. Of surgeons performing MIPD 96(77%) considered the overall value of MIPD superior or equivalent compared to open. The most important reason for not performing MIPR was a lack of specific training. Conclusion: This worldwide survey on MIPR shows that the current median annual number of MIPRs performed per surgeon remains low. Whereas most surgeons considered MIDP superior or equivalent to open distal pancreatectomy, this was not the case for MIPD. Defined training in MIPR appears necessary.

International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) “Coimbatore Summit Statements”

The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as “Coimbatore Summit Statements”.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections: cost and value perspectives

BackgroundThe number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications. MethodsAn international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR. ResultsCompared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level. ConclusionChallenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BackgroundThere is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. MethodsAfter formal literature review for “minimally invasive pancreatic surgery” term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. ResultsA systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine “approach + resection” (e.g. “laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine “first approach + resection” with “second approach + reconstruction” (e.g. “laparoscopic central pancreatectomy” with “open pancreaticojejunostomy”) and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is “first approach” + “converted to” + “second approach” + “resection” (e.g. “robot-assisted” “converted to open” “pancreatoduodenectomy”) ConclusionsThe guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BackgroundThe introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. MethodsAn anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. ResultsThe survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12–40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10–50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4–40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DiscussionThis worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.

Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections: a paradigm shift away from “See one, Do one, Teach one”

BackgroundIncreased incorporation of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) has emerged into hepato-pancreato-biliary practice, however, no standardization exists for its safe adoption. Novel strategies are presented for dissemination of safe MIPR. MethodsAn international State-of-the-Art conference evaluating multiple aspects of MIPR was conducted by a panel of pancreas experts in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 20, 2016. Training and education issues were discussed regarding the introduction of novel strategies for safe dissemination of MIPR. ResultsThe low volume of pancreatic resections per institution poses a challenge for surgeons to overcome their MIPR learning curve without deliberate training. A mastery-based simulation and biotissue curriculum can improve technical proficiency and allow for training of surgeons before the operating room. Video-based platforms allow for performance reporting and feedback necessary for coaching and surgical quality improvement. Centers of excellence with training involving a standardized approach and proctorship are important concepts that can be utilized in various formats internationally. DiscussionSurgical volume is not sufficient to ensure quality and patient safety in MIPR. Safe adoption of these complex procedures should consider innovative mastery-based training outside of the operating room, novel video based coaching techniques and prospective reporting of patient data and outcomes using standardized definitions.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR – including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.