Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy Research Articles

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by junior surgeon: Initial experience of the next generation.

Several guidelines exist for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) regarding its prerequisites and learning curve. However, these guidelines are based on the experience of the pioneers of MIPD; minimal data exist on the experience of the next generation of surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the two surgeon types (veteran and junior) for MIPD in terms of immediate postoperative outcomes. The postoperative outcomes of 22 patients who underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) by a junior surgeon from July 2021 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were compared with the initial postoperative outcomes and the contemporary postoperative outcomes of RAPD by a veteran surgeon. In comparing the initial outcomes between the two surgeon types, the veteran surgeons showed a shorter operation time (junior surgeon vs. veteran surgeon: 606±89 vs. 467±77min, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss (300 [200-600] ml. vs. 200 [100-500] ml, p=0.208), major complications (≥CDC IIIa: 4 (18.2%) vs. 4 (18.2%), p=1.000), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF; ≥ISGPF Grade B: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (13.6%), p>0.999), and length of hospital stay (18.0±8.9days vs. 18.3±7.9days, p=0.915), between the two surgeon types. In addition, in a comparison of the contemporary outcomes, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcome (complications: 4 (18.2%) vs 11 (11.1%), p=0.580; POPF: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (3.0%), p=0.484; length of hospital stay: 18.0±8.9 vs. 15.0±6.5days, p=0.065). The initial outcomes of MIPD by a well-trained junior surgeon were found to be comparable to those of MIPD by a veteran surgeon.

Perioperative textbook outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis in a Korean minimally invasive pancreatic surgery registry.

The aim of this study is to investigate the perioperative composite textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). The cohort study was conducted across 10 institutions and included 1552 patients who underwent MIPD registered with the Korean Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery between May 2007 and April 2020. We analyzed perioperative textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after MIPD. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess outcomes based on the hospital volume of MIPD. Among all patients, 21.8% underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. High-volume centers (performing >20 MIPD/year) performed 88.1% of the procedures. The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 11.5%. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) occurred in 15.1% of the cases. The 90-day mortality rate was 0.8%. The mean hospital stay was 13.7 days. Textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery success were achieved in 60.4% of patients, with higher rates observed in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers (62.2% vs. 44.7%, P<0.001). High-volume centers exhibited significantly lower conversion rates (5.4% vs. 12.5%, P=0.001), lower 90-day mortality (0.5% vs. 2.7%, P=0.001), and lower 90-day readmission rates (4.5% vs. 9.6%, P=0.006) than those low-volume centers. MIPD could be performed safely with permissible perioperative outcomes, including textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery, particularly in experienced centers. The findings of this study provided valuable insights for guiding surgical treatment decisions in periampullary disease.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles. A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033). LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: an ACS NSQIP Analysis

BackgroundThere is an increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) followed by minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). We evaluate the impact of the surgical approach on 30-day outcomes in PC patients who underwent NAT. MethodsPatients with PC who had NAT followed by MIPD or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from a pancreatectomy-targeted dataset (2014–2020) of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Comparisons were made between MIPD and OPD within NAT groups. ResultsA total of 5588 patients were analyzed. Of those, 4907 underwent OPD and 476 underwent MIPD. In addition, 3559 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone and 1830 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In the chemotherapy-alone group, the MIPD subgroup had lower rates of any complication (38.2% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.005), but there were no differences in mortality (2.1% for MIPD vs 1.9% for OPD, P=0.8) or serious complication (11.8% for MIPD vs 15% for OPD, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, MIPD was independently predictive of lower rates of any complication (OR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.6–0.93, P = 0.0009), CR-POPF (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.96, P = 0.04), and shorter LOS (estimate: −1.03, 95% CI −1.73 to −0.32, P = 0.004). In the chemoradiation group, patients undergoing MIPD had higher rates of preoperative diabetes (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in any outcomes between the two approaches in this group. ConclusionMIPD is safe and feasible after NAT. Patients having neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by MIPD had lower rates of complications, shorter LOS, and fewer CR-POPFs compared to OPD.

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.

End-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: technical description and single center experience.

Remarkable progress has been made in pancreatic surgery over the last decades with the introduction of minimally invasive techniques. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging operations in abdominal surgery and it is performed in a few centers worldwide. The treatment of the pancreatic stump is a crucial step of this operation; however, the best strategy to perform pancreatic anastomosis is still debated. In this article, we describe the technical details of our original technique of modified minimally invasive end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy (EIPJ) using video footage. In the current study, we retrospectively analyzed a pilot series of 67 consecutive cases of minimally invasive (7 robotic/60 fully laparoscopic) MIPD operated on at the General Surgery Department of the Panico Hospital, Tricase (Italy) between March 2017 and October 2022.The reconstruction phase involved an EIPJ, tailored using an intra-ductal anastomotic plastic stent. The aim of this study was to describe the technique and evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing MIPD with EIPJ. The mean operative time to perform the EIPJ was 21.57 ± 3.32min. Seven patients (10.5%) developed biochemical leaks and 13 (19.4%) developed clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (grade B or C according to the definition of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery). The early results confirm that this anastomosis is safe, easy to perform, and effective in the hands of hepatobiliopancreatic (HBP) surgeons with experience in minimally invasive surgery.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience.

ObjectiveTo retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).MethodsThis retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.ResultA total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).ConclusionRPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry

BackgroundThe European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. MethodsAnalysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. ResultsOverall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7–20) and 9 (2–20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0–77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7–45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. ConclusionWithin the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

Management of an aberrant right hepatic artery arising from the superior mesenteric artery during minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy—a narrative review

Management of an aberrant right hepatic artery arising from the superior mesenteric artery during minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy—a narrative review

Minimally invasive vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological adequacy: a propensity score-matched analysis.

The adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has increased over the last decade. Most of the data on perioperative and oncological outcomes derives from single-center high-volume hospitals. The impact of MIPD on oncological outcomes in a multicenter setting is poorly understood. The National Cancer Database was utilized to perform a propensity score matching analysis between MIPD vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes and surgical margins. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, length of stay, and overall survival. A total of 10,246 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2016. Among these patients, 1739 underwent MIPD. A propensity score matching analysis with a 1:2 ratio showed that the rate of lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes was significantly higher for MIPD compared to OPD, 68.4% vs 62.5% (P &lt; .0001), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of positive margins, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. OPD was associated with an increased rate of length of stay &gt; 10days, 36.6% vs 33% for MIPD (P &lt; .01). Trend analysis for the patients who underwent MIPD revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy increased during the study period, 73.1% between 2015 and 2016 vs 63.2% between 2010 and 2012 (P &lt; .001). In addition, the rate of conversion to OPD decreased over time, 29.3% between 2010 and 2012 vs 20.2% between 2015 and 2016 (P &lt; .001). In this propensity score matching analysis, the MIPD approach was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy and a shorter length of stay compared to OPD. The surgical margins status, 90-day mortality, and overall survival were similar between the groups.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients with Abnormal Vascular Anatomy: Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes

Introduction: Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy(MIPD) is a complex procedure where abnormal vascular anatomy(AVA), compared to normal vascular anatomy(NVA), can add to the surgical difficulty and risks. In particular, right or common hepatic artery (RHA and CHA, respectively) anomalies can be a source of serious problems. Hence preoperative planning and intraoperative care are paramount. Herein we present a video showing MIPD in case of AVA, discuss our protocol and surgical techniques, and compare results in patients with AVA involving the HA versus NVA. Methods: Data of patients undergoing MIPD(2015-2020) were analysed. Preoperative CT-angiography was performed in all patients. A SMA-first approach was performed in all patients with AVA while a hybrid left/anterior/posterior approach was adopted in NVA. The bile duct was divided at last in NVA patients, while biliary division was performed earlier in patients with AVA or with tumours adherent to the SMV/PV, thus allowing a cranio-caudal and caudo-cranial dissection. Results: among 83 patients, 25 showed AVA: 10 had a LHA from the LGA and 15(18%) had a replaced RHA(n=11)/CHA(n=4). These latter were compared with 68 with NVA. Operative time, blood loos and conversion rates were similar in both groups. Postoperative outcomes were similar, except for significantly lower rates of PPH in AVA patients. Moreover there was no difference in the rates of positive resection margins and number of harvested nodes (table 1). Conclusions: preoperative identification of AVA, SMA-first approach, early biliary division, and cranio-caudal-cranial approach can mitigate the added anatomical challenge, thus ensuring a safe and sound oncological MIPD.

International expert consensus on precision anatomy for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: PAM-HBP surgery project.

The anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting. Three clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection. MIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

Comparison of postoperative complications and long-term oncological outcomes in minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the only curative therapy for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCC). There has been no study to compare outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for dCC. The aim of the study is to compare the two operation types for dCC in terms of postoperative and oncologic outcomes. Data from 426 patients who underwent MIPD (n=91) or OPD (n=335) for dCC from January 2012 to December 2019 at two tertiary hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. After 1:2 propensity score matching, postoperative and oncologic outcomes were compared. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy group showed more favorable results than OPD group in terms of blood loss (MIPD vs OPD, 250 [150-400] vs 400 [200-600], mL, P<.001), and length of hospital stay (19.8±11.3 vs 26.6±14.3 days, P<.001). OPD group showed more favorable results than MIPD group in terms of operation time (MIPD vs OPD, 457±70 vs 398±85 min, P<.001) and harvested lymph nodes (14.9±7.8 vs 20.7±11.5, P<.001). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the R0 resection rate and complications. In long-term survival analysis, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy showed comparable postoperative complications and long-term oncologic survival with OPD in the treatment of dCC.

Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD. Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed. Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395min, 404min, 510min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250ml, 250ml, and 413ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively. This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

Precision anatomy for safe approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for both open and minimally invasive procedure: A systematic review.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has recently gained popularity. Several international meetings focusing on the existing literature on MIPD were held; however, the precise surgical anatomy of the pancreas for the safe use of MIPD has not yet been fully discussed. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of available articles and to show the importance of identifying the anatomical variation in pancreatoduodenectomy. In this review, we described variations in surgical anatomy related to MIPD. A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) was conducted, and the references were identified manually. The search strategy yielded 272 articles, with 77 retained for analysis. The important anatomy to be considered during MIPD includes the aberrant right hepatic artery, first jejunal vein, first jejunal artery, and dorsal pancreatic artery. Celiac artery stenosis and a circumportal pancreas are also important to recognize. We conclude that only certain anatomical variations are associated directly with perioperative outcomes and that identification of these particular variations is important for safe performance of MIPD.

Short-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BackgroundTo date, the evidence on the safety and benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in elderly patients is still controversy. This study aim to compare the risk and benefit between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients.MethodsFrom 2016 to 2020, we retrospective enrolled 26 patients underwent MIPD and other 119 patients underwent OPD. We firstly compared the baseline characteristics, 90-day mortality and short-term surgical outcomes of MIPD and OPD. Propensity score matching was applied for old age patient (≥ 65-year-old vs. < 65-year-old) for detail safety and feasibility analysis.ResultsPatients received MIPD is significantly older, had poor performance status, less lymph node harvest, longer operation time, less postoperative hospital stay (POHS) and earlier drain removal. After 1:2 propensity score matching analysis, elderly patients in MIPD group had significantly poor performance status (P = 0.042) compared to OPD group. Patients receiving MIPD had significantly shorter POHS (18 vs. 25 days, P = 0.028), earlier drain removal (16 vs. 21 days, P = 0.012) and smaller delay gastric empty rate (5.9 vs. 32.4% P = 0.036). There was no 90-day mortality (0% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.186) and pulmonary complications (0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.075) in MIPD group, and the major complication rate is comparable to OPD group (17.6% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.290).ConclusionFor elderly patients, MIPD is a feasible and safe option even in patients with inferior preoperative performance status. MIPD might also provide potential advantage for elderly patients in minimizing pulmonary complication and overall mortality over OPD.

Oncological outcome after minimally-invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: an international propensity-score matched study

Introduction: Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been suggested as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, large international multicenter studies comparing oncological outcome after MIPD and OPD for pancreatic cancer are lacking.

The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

Although early series focused on benign disease, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) might be particularly suited for malignancy. Unlike their predecessors, fellowship-trained (FT) Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary (HPB) surgeons usually have equal skills in approaching peri-ampullary tumors (PT) either openly or via minimally invasive (MI) techniques. We retrospectively reviewed a MI-HPB-FT surgeon's 10-year experience with PD. A sub-analysis of malignant PT was also done (MIPD-PT vs. OPD-PT). The primary endpoint was to assess postoperative mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints included operative parameters, length of hospital stay, and survival analysis. Moreover, we addressed practice pattern changes for a surgeon straight out of training with no previous experience of independent surgery. From December 2007-February 2018, one MI-HPB-FT performed a total of 100 PDs, including 57 MIPDs and 43 open PDs (OPDs). In both groups, over 70% of PDs were undertaken for malignancy. Eight patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal cancer (PDC) were in the OPD-PT group (as compared to only 2 in the MIPD-PT group) (p = 0.07). Estimated mean blood loss and length of stay were less in the MIPD-PT group (345mL and 12days) as compared to the OPD-PT group (971mL and 16days), p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively. However, the mean operative time was longer for the MIPD-PT (456min) as compared to the OPD-PT (371min), p < 0.001. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 2.6%/5.1% after MIPD-PT compared to 0%/3.2% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 1. Overall 30-/90-day morbidity rates were similar at 41.0%/43.6% after MIPD-PT and 35.5%/41.9% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 0.8 and 1. Complete resection (R0) rates were not statistically different, 97.4% after MIPD-PT compared to 87.0% after OPD-PT (p = 0.2). After MIPD and OPD for malignant PT, overall 1, 3 and 5-year survival rates, and median survival were 82.5%, 59.6% and 46.3% and 38months as compared to 52.5%, 15.7% and 10.5% and 13months, respectively (p = 0.01). In the MIDP-PT group, recurrence free survival (RFS) at 1, 3 and 5years and median RFS were 69.1%, 41.9% and 33.5% and 26months as compared to 50.4%, 6.3% and 6.3% and 13months, in the OPD-PT group, respectively (p = 0.03). FT HPB Surgeons who begin their practice with the ability to do both MI and OPD may preferentially approach resectable peri-ampullary tumors minimally invasively. This may result in decreased blood loss decreased length of hospital stays. Despite longer operative time, the improved visualization of MI techniques may enable superior R0 rates when compared to historical open controls. Moreover, combined with quicker initiation of adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatments, this may eventually result in improved survival.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.