-
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHOD
The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37572127
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03017-w -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP).
BACKGROUND
Total pancreatectomy is a complicated operation in abdominal surgery. The flexibility of minimally invasive surgery offers a new surgical approach to this technology. At present, there is little research on MITP, and its advantages over OTP remain uncertain.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted basing on comparative studies between MITP and OTP from January 1943 to November 2022. Intraoperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with a 95% CI were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models under heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 4275 patients were included. The major morbidity in the MITP group was significant lower (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.84, P=0.008, I²= 0%) than OTP group. At the same time, comparing with OTP, the MITP group had lower estimated blood loss (MD -362.50, 95% CI -641.34 to -83.66, P=0.01, I²=96%) and lower intraoperative transfusion rate (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.84, P=0.02, I²=0%). There were no significant differences between the MITP and OTP groups for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that MITP was associated with lower major morbidity, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative transfusion rate comparing with OTP. However, the further evidence with a better design is required.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Blood Transfusion; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37485920
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000392 -
Annals of Surgery Oct 2023Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?
OBJECTIVE
Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life.
RESULTS
After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Quality of Life; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37161977
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005895 -
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 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2023Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
METHODS
Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.
RESULTS
Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).
CONCLUSIONS
RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Pancreatectomy; Treatment Outcome; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Laparoscopy; Operative Time; Length of Stay; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36781467
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y -
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 -
Cancers Mar 2021To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
Six studies concerning 431 patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 176 underwent redo surgery, and 255 received non-surgical treatments. Overall survival and post-recurrence survival were significantly longer in the re-resected group (ratio of means (ROM) 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54-2.56, = 75.89%, = 0.006, and ROM = 2.05; 95% CI, 1.48-2.83, = 76.39%, = 0.002, respectively) with a median overall survival benefit of 28.7 months (mean difference (MD) 28.7; 95% CI, 10.3-47.0, = 89.27%, < 0.001) and median survival benefit of 15.2 months after re-resection (MD 15.2; 95% CI, 8.6-21.8, = 58.22%, = 0.048).
CONCLUSION
Resection of isolated pancreatic cancer recurrences is safe and feasible and may offer a survival benefit. Selection of patients and assessment of time and site of recurrence are mandatory.
PubMed: 33805716
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061277 -
Cancers Apr 2021Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, = 0.41) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.
PubMed: 33921838
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081967