-
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2023Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) is considered safe and feasible with limited evidence on this procedure. The aim of this study was to systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) is considered safe and feasible with limited evidence on this procedure. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the current literature on MITP compared to open TP (OTP).
METHOD
Randomized controlled trials and prospective non-randomized comparative studies were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL from their inception until December 2021. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOH), spleen-preservation rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), need for transfusion, venous resection rate, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), biliary leakage, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation rate, overall 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa), 90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, examined lymph nodes (ELN). Pooled results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
7 observational studies with a total of 4212 patients were included. MITP had a decreased EBL and transfusion rate, lower 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality with a longer LOH compared to OTP. There were no significant differences regarding operative time, spleen preservation rate, DGE, biliary leakage, venous resection rate, PPH, reoperation, 90-day readmission and ELN.
DISCUSSION
Based on the available studies, MITP is safe and feasible compared to OTP in highly experienced hands from high-volume centers. Further high-quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37032259
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.01.012 -
Digestive Surgery 2016An elective total pancreatectomy (TP) was first performed by Eugene Rockey of Portland, Oregon, in 1942. In the 1960s and 1970s, TP was the routine resection for... (Review)
Review
An elective total pancreatectomy (TP) was first performed by Eugene Rockey of Portland, Oregon, in 1942. In the 1960s and 1970s, TP was the routine resection for pancreatic cancer in many centers because of fear of a leaking pancreatojejunostomy and multicentricity of the disease but the result used to be dreadful (in today's perspective). However, more recently, postoperative mortality and morbidity after pancreatic resections have improved due to better anastomotic technique and pre-, peri- and postoperative care. Today, TP - despite being a more extensive operation - can be offered with about the same operation risk as that of a Whipple procedure. Also, major improvements in the control of diabetes have been seen and there is actually an ongoing discussion on the actual severity of the diabetic state after TP. Also, the development of modern pancreatic enzyme preparations with sufficient control of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency provides options for overcoming the postoperative problems following TP. Due to the improved results, there are today different - and more specific - indications than before for TP: malignant tumors growing from the pancreatic head into the left pancreas, pancreatic head cancer where it is not possible to secure a tumor-free resection margin with extended resection or with dubious changes in the pancreatic main duct at frozen section, recurrent malignancy in the pancreatic remnant, at cancer surgery with resection of the celiac trunk, rescue pancreatectomy after a leaking pancreatojejunostomy with sepsis or bleeding after a Whipple-type first resection, multifocal intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with potentially malignant foci present in all parts of the gland, multiple metastases of renal cell carcinoma and melanoma without any residual tumor outside the pancreatic gland (possibly also other specified but uncommon metastatic tumors with a potential for cure by pancreatectomy), multifocal neuroendocrine tumors including multiple endocrine neoplasia and hereditary pancreatic cancer with a high grade of cancer penetration risk for the bearers.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Malabsorption Syndromes; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Patient Selection; Pylorus; Spleen; Stomach
PubMed: 27215746
DOI: 10.1159/000445018 -
PloS One 2016To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).
METHODS
A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.
CORE TIP
To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26974961
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151189 -
Journal of Surgical Oncology Jul 2020Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved... (Review)
Review
Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.
Topics: Computer Simulation; Computer-Assisted Instruction; Education, Medical, Graduate; Humans; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 32215926
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25912 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Nov 2016Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a... (Review)
Review
Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the development and spread of robotic surgery has highlighted a new interest, which has induced a rapid spread of robotic approaches for pancreatic resections. This study presents a systematic review of the literature regarding robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in order to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 27185566
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.001 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jan 2021This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures.
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified studies reporting on quality indicators for cholecystectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and complex biliary surgical procedures. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and SCOPUS, with all literature available until the search date of 1 May 2020 included. The reference lists of all included papers, as well as related review articles, were manually searched to identify further relevant studies.
RESULTS
Forty-five publications report quality indicators for pancreatectomy (n = 22), hepatectomy (n = 7), HPB resections in general (n = 12), and cholecystectomy (n = 6). No publications proposed QPI for complex biliary surgery. The 45 papers used national audit (n = 18), consensus methodology (n = 5), state-wide audit (n = 3), unit audit (n = 9), review methodology (n = 9), and survey methodology (n = 1). Sixty-one QPI were reported for pancreatectomy, 22 reported for hepatectomy, and 14 reported for HPB resections in general, in domains of infrastructure, provider, and documentation. Fourteen infrastructure and provider-based QPI were reported for cholecystectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
There are few internationally agreed QPI for HPB procedures that allow global comparison of provider performance and that set aspirational goals for patient care and experience.
Topics: Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Databases, Factual; Hepatectomy; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 33158749
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.013 -
The British Journal of Surgery Aug 2019
Topics: Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Duodenum; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Portal Vein
PubMed: 31304576
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11134 -
Surgery Jun 2022Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is unknown whether the clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is comparable with that after open distal pancreatectomy. We aimed to compare not only the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but more importantly, also its clinical impact.
METHODS
This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial investigating a possible beneficial impact of a fibrin patch on the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) after distal pancreatectomy. Primary outcomes of the current analysis are the incidence and clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after both minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy.
RESULTS
From October 2010 to August 2017, 252 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were randomized, and data of 247 patients were available for analysis: 87 minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and 160 open distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy (28.7% vs 16.9%, P = .029). More patients were discharged with an abdominal surgical drain after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy (30/87, 34.5% vs 26/160, 16.5%, P = .001). In patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula, additional percutaneous catheter drainage procedures were performed less often (52% vs 84.6%, P = .012), with fewer drainage procedures (median [range], 2 [1-4] vs 2, [1-7], P = .014) after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.
CONCLUSION
In this post hoc analysis, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy, whereas the clinical impact was less.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34906371
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.009 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2014Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many intra-abdominal pathologies the overwhelming majority of pancreatic surgery is performed in an open fashion. This is attributed to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas, its intimate relationship to major vasculature and the complexity of reconstruction in the case of pancreatoduodenectomy. Herein, we describe the application of robotic technology to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The unique capabilities of the robotic platform have made the minimally invasive approach feasible and safe with equivalent if not better outcomes (e.g., decreased length of stay, less surgical site infections) to conventional open surgery. However, it is unclear whether the robotic approach is truly superior to traditional laparoscopy; this is a key point given the substantial costs associated with procuring and maintaining robotic capabilities.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25356035
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i40.14726 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2022Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.
RESULTS
Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.
CONCLUSION
RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34625342
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.014