-
Updates in Surgery Jan 2024Pancreatic cancer surgery, with one of the worst prognoses in oncology, is a challenge to the surgical community. Centralization of pancreatic surgery has led to the... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic cancer surgery, with one of the worst prognoses in oncology, is a challenge to the surgical community. Centralization of pancreatic surgery has led to the foundation of high-volume centers, thereby greatly facilitating the successful performance of more radical approaches. This review spotlights on recent advances in surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and the risks and benefits of vascular reconstruction to improve resectability. Surgery being the only modality to achieve cure, multivisceral and vascular resections are being incorporated to improve dismal operability rates of < 10%. Great leaps have been made in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, as targeted and specific chemotherapeutic agents are being continually added. The concept of borderline and locally advanced pancreatic tumors and the use of neoadjuvant chemorad has extended the indications of oncological resection in such tumors. Venous resections are being routinely performed so as to facilitate en bloc removal of tumors, while arterial resections, owing to the increased morbidity and mortality, are offered to highly selective cases. New techniques like the triangle operation and periarterial divestment have opened new viable surgical options. Although laparoscopic approach is time consuming, it offers reduced operative blood loss and a shortened hospital stay at specialized centers. Robotic surgery may produce better results in patients needing vascular resection and reconstruction, but the expenses involved and limited availability are major deterrents. Advanced techniques of surgical resection and vessel reconstruction provide a repository for curative-intent surgery in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Neoadjuvant Therapy
PubMed: 37943494
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01692-4 -
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 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Jun 2021Aberrant hepatic artery anatomy is a considerable challenge during pancreatic surgery as it warrants extreme caution for the preservation of vascular supply as well as... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Aberrant hepatic artery anatomy is a considerable challenge during pancreatic surgery as it warrants extreme caution for the preservation of vascular supply as well as achievement of R0 resection margin.
METHOD
We reviewed the literature about the aberrant anatomical variations of the hepatic artery and its relevance during pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.
RESULT
Preoperative deliberation of peri-pancreatic vascular anatomy using advanced imaging methods is crucial for surgeons. At the same time, intra-operative suspicion and early identification of aberrant anatomy may help to prevent vascular injury and related complications. Yet, vascular reconstruction may be needed in many situations; several techniques like pre-operative embolization provide new options for management in specific situations.
CONCLUSION
We have provided here an overview of the anatomical variants of the hepatic artery and their implication during pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.
Topics: Hepatic Artery; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 33616844
DOI: 10.1007/s12029-021-00598-x -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size of local tumors and eliminate potential micrommetastases. However, systematic and evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of arterial resection (AR) after NAT in pancreatic cancer are scarce.
METHOD
A computerized search of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Clinicaltrials was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with AR and NAT for pancreatic cancer. Studies that reported perioperative and/or long-term results after pancreatectomy with AR and NAT were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the evidence was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form of bias tool. Data were pooled and analyzed by Stata 14.0 software.
RESULT
Nine studies with an overall sample size of 215 met our eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were retrospective studies, and the methodological quality was moderate. The pooled morbidity and mortality rates were 51% (95% CI: 41-61%; I²= 0.0%) and 2% (95% CI: 0-0.08; I²=33.3%), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the overall R0 resection rate was 79% (CI: 70-86%, I²=15.5%). Comparative data on R0 rates of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with and without NAT showed a significant difference in favor of the former group with moderate statistical heterogeneity (Relative risk=1.21; 95% CI: 0.776-1.915; I²=48.0%). The median 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of patients who had AR were 92.3% (range: 72.7-100%), 64.8% (range: 25-78.8%), 51.6% (range: 16.7-63.6%), and 14% (range: 0-41.1%), respectively. Data on median progression-free survival ranged from 5.25 to 36.3 months, and the median overall survival ranged from 17 to 44.9 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Pancreatectomy with major AR following NAT has the potential to enhance the survival rate of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer involving the arteries by achieving R0 resection, despite a significant risk of postoperative complications. However, to validate the feasibility and effectiveness of this procedure, prospective controlled studies are necessary to address limitations arising from small sample sizes and potential biases inherent in retrospective studies.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Arteries; Neoplasms, Second Primary
PubMed: 38259002
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000742 -
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 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2022
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 35667957
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.05.1340 -
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 -
Bioscience Trends Jul 2021Pancreatic cancer is known to have the poorest prognosis among digestive cancers. With the development of new chemotherapeutic agents and introduction of...
Pancreatic cancer is known to have the poorest prognosis among digestive cancers. With the development of new chemotherapeutic agents and introduction of multidisciplinary therapy, however, the treatment outcomes for pancreatic cancer have dramatically improved over the past two decades. The keys to successful treatment will be accurate assessment of resectability [resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR) or unresectable (UR)] at the time of diagnosis and prompt adoption of an appropriate multidisciplinary treatment strategy. Prep-02/JSAP-05 trial which is an RCT of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy using GEM and S-1 (GS) and subsequent surgery for R-PDAC in Japan indicated neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a longer overall survival (OS) than those undergoing upfront surgery (36.7M vs. 26.6M, p = 0.015). In a retrospective multicenter study in Japan reported that in BR-PDAC, median survival time (MST) in the pretreatment group was significantly better than that in the upfront surgery group (25.7 months vs. 19.0 months, p = 0.015) according to a propensity score matching analysis. Another retrospective multicenter study with UR-LA PDAC in Japan reported that conversion surgery was more beneficial for patients with more than 8 months of preoperative therapy than those with less than 8 months of that therapy. Various clinical trials on pancreatic cancer are ongoing, and the results of trials on chemotherapeutic regimens and multidisciplinary treatments will be of further interest.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Japan; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Patient Care Team; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33776020
DOI: 10.5582/bst.2021.01103