-
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 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Mar 2018This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
This review describes the recent advances in, and current status of, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). Typical MIPS procedures are laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP), and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). Some retrospective studies comparing LPD or LDP and open procedures have demonstrated the safety and feasibility as well as the intraoperative outcomes and postoperative recovery of these procedures. In contrast, LCP and LTP have not been widely accepted as common laparoscopic procedures owing to their complicated reconstruction and limited indications. Nevertheless, our concise review reveals that LCP and LTP performed by expert laparoscopic surgeons can result in good short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, as surgeons' experience with laparoscopic techniques continues to grow around the world, new innovations and breakthroughs in MIPS will evolve. Well-designed and suitably powered randomized controlled trials of LPD, LDP, LCP, and LTP are now warranted to demonstrate the superiority of these procedures.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27688035
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.09.003 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2022Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after...
BACKGROUND
Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear.
METHODS
The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined.
RESULTS
Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time.
CONCLUSIONS
In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33534075
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08306-3 -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice.
METHODS
149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP.
RESULTS
The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group ( < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher ( < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before.
CONCLUSION
RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35024102
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7302222 -
Cirugia Y Cirujanos 2022To compare the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP); and to analyze the association between the section site of the...
AIMS
To compare the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP); and to analyze the association between the section site of the pancreas and pancreatic fistula.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical, perioperative, and histopathologic data of patients who underwent ODP and LDP between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS
70 patients were included. 39 (56%) underwent ODP and 31 (44%) underwent LDP. The tumor size in ODP group was 70mm and in LDP group was 45mm (p = 0,032) Blood loss was lower in LDP group (229mL versus 498mL) (p = 0,001). Operative time, spleen preservation, B/C pancreatic fistula, major morbidity, reoperation, and length of hospital stay, were similar in both groups. There was no postoperative mortality. No differences were found in B/C pancreatic fistula rate regarding to pancreatic transection site.
CONCLUSIONS
LDP is a safe procedure, with perioperative outcomes similar to ODP and with less blood loss. The pancreatic transection site did not influence post-operative pancreatic fistula rate.
Topics: Hospitals; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35636945
DOI: 10.24875/CIRU.20001247 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2012Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23082049
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5329 -
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 -
BMC Surgery Nov 2017Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.
Topics: Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Period; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29121885
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2020Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is a known consequence of pancreatic resection; however, its incidence following distal pancreatectomy is not well defined. The...
BACKGROUND
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is a known consequence of pancreatic resection; however, its incidence following distal pancreatectomy is not well defined. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of EPI in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy and moreover identify risk factors for developing de-novo EPI after distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
A prospectively maintained institutional pancreatic resection database was interrogated to identify patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2015. Pre- and post-operative exocrine function, histopathology, demographics and volume of pancreas resected were analyzed.
RESULTS
The cohort consisted of 324 patients, 22 (6.8%) presented with EPI pre-operatively. 38 (12.6%) patients developed new onset EPI requiring pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. There was no relationship between patient demographics or diabetes status and requirement for pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and no significant effect of resection volume on the need for pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy post-operatively (p ≥ 0.05). Having an underlying obstructive pancreatic pathology (p = 0.002) or a presenting history of acute pancreatitis (p < 0.001) significantly predicted development of de-novo EPI.
CONCLUSION
These results indicate that pre-existing EPI at time of surgery is not uncommon. Patients presenting for distal pancreatectomy should be assessed pre-operatively for the need for pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.
Topics: Aged; Cohort Studies; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Female; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Prevalence; Regression Analysis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31327560
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.06.017 -
The British Journal of Surgery Dec 2022Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal...
BACKGROUND
Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods.
METHODS
Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods.
RESULTS
Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively.
CONCLUSION
Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Spleen; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Benchmarking; Operative Time; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36322465
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac352