Open Distal Pancreatectomy Research Articles

"Minimally Invasive and Open Distal Pancreatectomy: Equally Safe in Terms of VTE Risk"

"Minimally Invasive and Open Distal Pancreatectomy: Equally Safe in Terms of VTE Risk"

The efficacy of wrapping with polyglycolic acid mesh and fibrin glue in preventing clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (WRAP Study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Japan

BackgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) continues to be the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Recent advancements in surgical techniques have established minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as the standard treatment for various conditions, including pancreatic cancer. However, MIDP has not demonstrated a clear advantage over open DP in terms of POPF rates, indicating the need for additional strategies to prevent POPF in MIDP. This trial (WRAP study) aims to evaluate the efficacy of wrapping the pancreatic stump with polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh and fibrin glue in preventing clinically relevant (CR-) POPF following MIDP.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized controlled trial will include patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic DP for tumors in the pancreatic body and/or tail. Eligible participants will be centrally randomized into either the control group (Group A) or the intervention group (Group B), where the pancreatic stump will be reinforced by PGA mesh and fibrin glue. In both groups, pancreatic transection will be performed using a bioabsorbable reinforcement-attached stapler. A total of 172 patients will be enrolled across 14 high-volume centers in Japan. The primary endpoint is the incidence of CR-POPF (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C).DiscussionThe WRAP study will determine whether the reinforcement of the pancreatic stump with PGA mesh and fibrin glue, a technique whose utility has been previously debated, could become the best practice in the era of MIDP, thereby enhancing its safety.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials on June 15, 2024 (jRCTs032240120).

Advantage of Postoperative Inflammatory Status after Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Introduction: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe and effective procedure; however, its impact on perioperative inflammatory reactions compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) remains unclear. This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes following LDP and ODP regarding inflammatory reactions. Methods: This retrospective study of 77 consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for low-grade malignancies between 2005 and 2022 compared white blood cell (WBC) count, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, serum albumin level, and CRP/albumin ratio (CAR) between LDP and ODP. Complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), recovery program, and hospital stay period, were also compared. Results: POPF (17.1% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.039) and surgical morbidity (≥Clavien-Dindo grade III, 12.2% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.038) were significantly lower in LDP than in ODP, as for the difference in postoperative inflammatory response, including CRP and CAR, was just temporary. By multivariate analysis, CAR ≥6.94 on POD 3 was significant predictor of POPF (42.1% vs. 13.2%, odds ratio 4.828, p = 0.030). Conclusion: LDP has lower POPF and earlier postoperative recovery. CAR could be a predictor of POPF.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: an overview of evaluation and treatment strategies.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) confer benefits over open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). These benefits extend to patients with known malignancies. Despite being a common procedure for pancreatic surgeons, widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches is still not universal. Improved understanding of the benefits of LDP as well as operative steps can help further spread the use of minimally invasive techniques. The authors present their approach to LDP with an emphasis on anatomy, intraoperative technique, and pearls/pitfalls. A brief historical overview of the development of LDP and landmark studies is also included. Review of milestones along the evolution of LDP are presented, showcasing the controversies and advantages that are associated with the procedure. Current perspectives and society recommendations are also discussed. Operative steps of LDP are described via the "clockwise technique". This technique outlines a step-wise method that includes wide mobilization for adequate exposure, slow compression of pancreatic parenchyma, and other important pearls such as patient positioning and operative planning. Proper understanding of LDP is crucial to maximizing positive outcomes from the operation. Further education on technical pearls can help increase use of minimally invasive approaches to distal pancreatic resection for cancer.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A propensity-matched national analysis on surgical outcomes and healthcare disparities

BackgroundPancreatic adenocarcinoma of distal pancreas is hard to treat due to late presentation. While open distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has had favourable outcomes, it has also had many complications which were low among Minimally invasive procedures. This retrospective cohort analysis compares minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) outcomes using a national inpatient database. MethodsThe study used 2016–2020 NIS data. The study included 1577 distal pancreatic malignant tumor surgery patients. There were 530 Minimally Invasive and 1047 Open groups. Propensity matched analysis was performed on surgical groups to reduce confounding variables. ResultsIn comparison to open procedures, minimally invasive techniques reduced hospital stays by 10 ​% (OR ​= ​0.90, 95 ​% CI 0.86–0.93). While not statistically significant, the unmatched analysis linked MIDP to lower in-hospital mortality. African Americans were 37 ​% less likely to undergo MIDP than Caucasians (OR ​= ​0.63, 95 ​% CI ​= ​0.40–0.96). ConclusionNationwide analysis suggests MIDP may be a safe and effective surgical treatment for distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It may reduce hospital stays and mortality over open surgery. The study also suggests race may affect minimally invasive procedure rates.

71342 - International differences in selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: a transatlantic analysis

71342 - International differences in selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: a transatlantic analysis

International differences in the selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: A transatlantic analysis

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. MethodsAll patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014–2020 were included. ResultsOverall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159–2.300, P = .005). ConclusionsConsiderable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.

Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed. Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, p = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, p = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, p = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy. This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study

BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. MethodsThis retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. ResultsDuring the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of “textbook” outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. ConclusionMinimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.

Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) compared with conventional pancreatic transection in distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for the randomised controlled CUSA-1 pilot trial

BackgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to...

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.

Open distal pancreatectomy stump closure by linear stapling versus continuous suturing: a retrospective–prospective comparative study

Background Distal pancreatectomy (DP), performed for removing pancreatic lesions located to the left of the superior mesenteric vein, accounts for ~25% of all pancreatic resections. Most recently reported overall mortality rate of DP is less than 3%. However, albeit technically simpler to perform than pancreaticoduodenectomy, morbidity rate of DP remains substantial. Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs), which may result in numerous clinically significant and potentially life-threatening complications such as intraabdominal abscess, hemorrhage, and surgical site infection, is the leading cause of morbidity after DP, with an incidence of ~30–60%. Risk factors associated with POPFs after DP include decreased serum albumin levels, concurrent splenectomy, increased body weight, increased duration of surgery, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and impaired renal function. Furthermore, POPFs often translate to significant increases in hospitalization costs. Objective To compare the technique of DP stump closure in two groups of patients; a group underwent stump closure with linear stapling technique and the other group underwent stump closure with continuous suturing technique. Patients and methods This was a retrospective–prospective clinical trial that was conducted at General Surgery Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals on 30 patients who were admitted to specialized hepatobiliary units in Cairo, Egypt for open DP. Between January 2020 and June 2022 with postoperative follow-up period of 2 months. In our study, there were 30 patients (15 in the continuous suturing technique group and 15 in the linear stapling technique group) with a mean age of 45.37±10.662 years. Groups were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics (P&gt;0.05). Results In our study, 13.33% patients in continuous suturing technique group developed clinically relevant POPF (grade B and grade C POPF), whereas 33.33% patients in stapling technique group develop POPF (P=1.00). The amount of the blood loss which was found to be statistically significant as the P value was found less than 0.05 and the t test was found to be −2.396 which mean that the amount of the blood lost was more in the stapler group. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of clinically relevant POPF (grade B and grade C POPF) with suture closure compared with stapler closure (13.33 vs. 33.33%). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of intraabdominal abscess. There were three (20%) patients with a biochemical leak in continuous suturing technique group. In stapling technique group, three (20%) patients developed biochemical leaks. There was no significant in difference between groups in terms of biochemical leak. In our study, mortality rates did not differ between stapler and suture closure techniques. Conclusion Our study showed no significant difference between suture and stapler closure of DP stump with respect to POPF or intraabdominal collection after DP. The amount of the blood lost was more in the stapler group.

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].

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.

International differences in selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: a transatlantic analysis

International differences in selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: a transatlantic analysis

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a propensity score matched multicentric comparative study

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a propensity score matched multicentric comparative study

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open distal pancreatectomy, whilst the outcomes following robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC. The patients who underwent robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC at our clinical centre between January 2017 and December 2021 were reviewed. After a propensity score matching (PSM) at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative and pathological outcomes in the both groups were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients. 318 cases were recorded in robotic and open groups. The robotic group showed advantages in operative time [205.00 (166.00, 240.00) min vs 235 (184.75, 270.00) min, P = 0.002], estimated blood loss [100 (50, 100) ml vs 300 (100, 400) ml, P < 0.001], delayed gastric emptying [0 vs 5.03%, P = 0.007] and postoperative hospital stay [7.00 (5.00, 10.00) days vs 11.00 (8.00, 14.00) days, P < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in rate of severe postoperative complications between the robotic group and the open group. Multivariable analysis showed that carbohydrate antigen 19-9, estimated blood loss, N stage, tumour differentiation, chemotherapy and vascular invasion were independent risk factors for OS and RFS of these patients. Robotic RAMPS was safe and had some advantages over open RAMPS for PDAC. There were no significantly differences in oncological outcomes and long-term survival rates between the robotic and open groups. Robotic RAMPS expanded the indications for minimally invasive surgeries for PDAC to a certain extent.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the 2020s: Recent Institutional Experience and a Narrative Review of Current Evidence.

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit's data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit's data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy - a single centre experience

Laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy - a single centre experience