Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy Research Articles

Impact of patient age on outcome of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score matched study

BackgroundPancreatoduodenectomy in elderly patients may be associated with increased postoperative mortality, but studies in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are scarce. MethodsInternational multicenter retrospective study including patients aged >60 years undergoing MIPD (robot-assisted and laparoscopic) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), were categorized by age: 60-69, 70-79, and 80+ years. In each category, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed (1:1 ratio) between MIPD and OPD. Primary outcome was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. ResultsAmong 3820 patients, we matched 1468 patients aged 60-69, 1154 patients aged 70-79, and 196 patients aged 80+ years. In patients aged 60-69 and 70-79 years, MIPD was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss and a longer length of stay. Major morbidity was higher after MIPD with similar 30-day/in-hospital mortality. The R0 resection rate was higher after MIPD. In patients aged 80+ years, besides a longer operative time in MIPD, outcomes were comparable between both groups. ConclusionThis study found no evidence that increasing age worsens mortality of MIPD. MIPD was associated with longer operative time, higher rate of major morbidity, prolonged length of stay versus less blood loss and a higher R0 resection in patients aged 60-69 and 70-79 years. These differences continue in patients aged 80+ years, but became less evident.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and totally laparoscopic PD after overcoming learning curves with comparison of oncologic outcomes between open PD and minimally invasive PD.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease. This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180). Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Outcome of Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients with Intestinal- and Pancreatobiliary Subtype Ampullary Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

To compare minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy in different subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) is widely seen as the best indication for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) due to the lack of vascular involvement and dilated bile and pancreatic duct. However, it is unknown whether outcomes of MIPD for AAC differ between the pancreatobiliary (AAC-PB) and intestinal (AAC-IT) subtypes as large studies are lacking. This is an international cohort study, encompassing 27 centers from 12 countries. Outcome of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were compared in patients with AAC-IT and AAC-PB. Primary end points were R1 rate, lymph node yield, and 5-year overall survival (5yOS). Overall, 1187 patients after MIPD for AAC were included, of whom 572 with AAC-IT (62 MIPD, 510 OPD) and 615 with AAC-PB (41 MIPD and 574 OPD). The rate of R1 resection was not significantly different between MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (3.4% vs 6.9%, P=0,425) and AAC-PB (9.8% vs 14.9%, P=0,625). AAC-IT, more lymph nodes were resected with MIPD group (19 vs 16, P=0.007), compared to OPD. The 5y-OS did not differ after MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (56.8% vs 59.5%, P=0.827 and AAC-PB (52.5% vs 44.4%, P=0.357). The rates of surgical complication between MIPD and OPD did not differ between AmpIT and AmpPB. This international multicenter study found no differences in outcomes between MIPD and OPD for AAC-IT and AAC-PB. MIPD and OPD demonstrated comparable outcomes in oncological resection, survival and surgical outcomes for both subtypes of AAC.

Complexity and Experience Grading to Guide Patient Selection for Minimally-invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: An ISGPS Consensus.

The ISGPS aims to develop a universally accepted complexity and experience grading system to guide the safe implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Despite the perceived advantages of MIPD, its global adoption has been slow due to the inherent complexity of the procedure and challenges to acquiring surgical experience. Its wider adoption must be undertaken with an emphasis towards appropriate patient selection according to adequate surgeon and center experience. The ISGPS developed a complexity and experience grading system to guide patient selection for MIPD based on an evidence-based review and a series of discussions. The ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for MIPD is subclassified into patient-related risk factors and provider experience-related variables. The patient-related risk factors include anatomical (main pancreatic and common bile duct diameters), tumor-specific (vascular contact), and conditional (obesity and previous complicated upper abdominal surgery/disease) factors, all incorporated in an A-B-C classification, graded as no, a single, and multiple risk factors. The surgeon and center experience-related variables include surgeon total MIPD experience (cut-offs 40 and 80) and center annual MIPD volume (cut-offs 10 and 30), all also incorporated in an A-B-C classification. This ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for robotic and laparoscopic MIPD may enable surgeons to optimally select patients after duly considering specific risk factors known to influence the complexity of the procedure. This grading system will likely allow for a thoughtful and stepwise implementation of MIPD and facilitate a fair comparison of outcome between centers and countries.

Incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a population-based study.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a devastating complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PD (MIPD), including laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, have comparable POPF rates to open PD (OPD). However, we hypothesize that the likelihood of having a more severe POPF, as defined as clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), would be higher in an MIPD relative to OPD. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy dataset (2014-2020) was reviewed for any POPF after OPD. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared MIPD to OPD, and then RPD to LPD. Among 3,083 patients who developed a POPF, 2,843 (92.2%) underwent OPD and 240 (7.8%) MIPD; of these, 25.0% were LPD (n = 60) and 75.0% RPD (n = 180). Grade B POPF was observed in 45.4% (n = 1,400), and grade C in 6.0% (n = 185). After PSM, MIPD patients had higher rates of CR-POPF (47.3% OPD vs. 54.4% MIPD, p = 0.037), as well as higher reoperation (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.006), delayed gastric emptying (29.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.041), and readmission rates (28.2% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.032). However, CR-POPF rates were comparable between LPD and RPD (56.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.408). The impact of POPF is more clinically pronounced after MIPD than OPD with a more complex postoperative course. The difference appears to be attributed to the minimally invasive environment itself as no difference was noted between LPD and RPD. A clear biological explanation of this clinical observation remains missing. Further studies are warranted.

Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pancreatoduodenectomy, the primary surgical strategy for managing cholangiocarcinoma, is executed via two distinct methodologies, namely minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The selection between these surgical options is critical, as it directly influences patient outcomes, encompassing both short-term recovery metrics and long-term survival rates. Despite the clinical significance of these procedures, there exists a notable void in the literature regarding a comprehensive comparison of MIPD and OPD, particularly in assessing their respective efficacies and complications. This lack of detailed comparative analysis has left a gap in evidence-based guidance for clinicians faced with the decision of choosing the most appropriate surgical approach for their patients. The absence of robust data comparing the two techniques underscores the necessity for a meta-analysis that rigorously examines and contrasts the outcomes associated with MIPD and OPD. By drawing upon a wide array of international studies, this research aims to shed light on the advantages and potential drawbacks of each method, thereby providing a more informed basis for surgical decision-making in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

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.