-
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2017An increasing body of literature is supporting the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, but there are limited... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
An increasing body of literature is supporting the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, but there are limited comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative 30-day overall complications between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHODS
Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were abstracted from the 2014-2015 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to determine if the type of minimally invasive approach was associated with 30-day overall complications.
RESULTS
We identified 428 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy cases, of which 235 (55%) were performed laparoscopically and 193 (45%) robotically. Patients who underwent the robotic approach were more likely to be white compared to those who underwent the laparoscopic approach and were less likely to have pulmonary disease, undergo preoperative radiotherapy, and have vascular and multivisceral resection. On multivariable analysis, we found that the type of minimally invasive approach, whether laparoscopic or robotic, was not associated with overall complications. The predictors of 30-day overall complications were higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09), vascular resection (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23-3.58), and longer operative time (OR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004).
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a similar 30-day overall complication rate to laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings and to establish the best approach to perform this complex operation.
Topics: Aged; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Quality Improvement; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; United States
PubMed: 28819886
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-017-3543-6 -
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 -
Chinese Clinical Oncology Feb 2017Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is an extremely challenging surgery. First described in 1994, LPD has been gaining a favorable position in the majority of... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is an extremely challenging surgery. First described in 1994, LPD has been gaining a favorable position in the majority of pancreatic surgery. Now, LPD is worldwide accepted. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, and only papers written in English containing more than 26 publications of LPD were selected. Papers in distal and robotic pancreatic procedure were not included in the review of a total of 222 LPD publications. The total number of patients analyzed was 1,082 from 25 articles and the largest series. Six of these studies came from the United States, 1 from France, 5 from South Korea, and 1 from India, 2 from Japan, 5 from China, 1 from Italy, 1 Germany, 2 from UK. The overall pancreatic fistula rate was 20.5%. The overall conversion rate was 10.4%. LPD seems to be a valid alternative to the standard open approach with similar technical and oncological results. LPD is a safe procedure, providing many of the advantages typically associated with laparoscopic procedures. We expect this operation to continue to gain in popularity as well as be offered in increasingly more complex cases. In future studies, it will be beneficial to look further at the oncologic outcome data of LPD including survival.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 28285538
DOI: 10.21037/cco.2017.01.03 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2010
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Pylorus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20339172
DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.61229 -
Medicine Aug 2015Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) holds high postoperative morbidity. How to resolve this issue is challenged. An additional anastomosis (Braun enteroenterostomy) following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) holds high postoperative morbidity. How to resolve this issue is challenged. An additional anastomosis (Braun enteroenterostomy) following PD may decrease the postoperative morbidity, but holds conflicting results. The objective of this study is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of Braun enteroenterostomy in PD.Clinical studies compared perioperative outcomes between the Braun group and the non-Braun group following PD before December 21, 2014 were retrieved and filtered from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases (VIP database, WanFang database, and CNKI database). Relevant data were extracted according to predesigned sheets. Blood loss, operating time, and postoperative mortality and morbidity were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference, or standard mean difference (SMD).Ten studies concerning 1614 patients were included. No significant differences between the Braun and the non-Braun group were identified in mortality (OR: 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-1.60), intraoperative blood loss (SMD: -0.035, 95% CI: -0.253 to 0.183), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.35-1.67), bile leakage (OR: 0.537, 95% CI: 0.287-1.004), postoperative gastrointestinal hemorrhage (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.578-2.385), intraabdominal abscesses (OR: 0.793, 95% CI: 0.444-1.419), wound complications (OR: 0.806, 95% CI: 0.490-1.325), and hospital stay (SMD: -0.098, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.033). Braun enteroenterostomy extended operating time (SMD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.02-0.78), but it was associated with lower reoperation rate (OR: 0.380, 95% CI: 0.149-0.968), lower morbidity rate (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91), lower clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying (Grades B and C) (OR: 0.375, 95% CI: 0.164-0.858), lower nasogastric tube reinsertion (OR: 0.436, 95% CI: 0.232-0.818), and less postoperative vomiting (OR: 0.444, 95% CI: 0.262-0.755).Braun enteroenterostomy can be safely performed during PD. It is beneficial for patients and could be recommended in PD from the current published data.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015016198.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Enterostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation
PubMed: 26266356
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001254 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jun 2011Pancreaticoduodenectomy is one of the most challenging surgical procedures which requires the highest level of surgical expertise. This procedure has constantly evolved... (Review)
Review
Pancreaticoduodenectomy is one of the most challenging surgical procedures which requires the highest level of surgical expertise. This procedure has constantly evolved over the years through the meticulous efforts of a number of surgeons before reaching its current state. This review navigates through some of the early limitations and misconceptions and highlights the initial milestones which laid the foundation of this procedure. The current review also provides a few excerpts from the lives and illuminates on some of the seminal contributions of the three great surgeons: William Stewart Halsted, Walther Carl Eduard Kausch and Allen Oldfather Whipple. These surgeons pioneered the nascent stages of this procedure and paved the way for the modern day pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: History, 19th Century; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21609369
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00305.x -
Cancer Communications (London, England) Feb 2023The extent of pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer remains controversial, and more high-level clinical evidence is needed. This study aimed to evaluate the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Standard pancreatoduodenectomy versus extended pancreatoduodenectomy with modified retroperitoneal nerve resection in patients with pancreatic head cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
The extent of pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer remains controversial, and more high-level clinical evidence is needed. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of extended pancreatoduodenectomy (EPD) with retroperitoneal nerve resection in pancreatic head cancer.
METHODS
This multicenter randomized trial was performed at 6 Chinese high-volume hospitals that enrolled patients between October 3, 2012, and September 21, 2017. Four hundred patients with stage I or II pancreatic head cancer and without specific pancreatic cancer treatments (preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation) within three months were randomly assigned to undergo standard pancreatoduodenectomy (SPD) or EPD, with the latter followed by dissection of additional lymph nodes (LNs), nerves and soft tissues 270° on the right side surrounding the superior mesenteric artery and celiac axis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat (ITT). The secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), mortality, morbidity, and postoperative pain intensity.
RESULTS
The R1 rate was slightly lower with EPD (8.46%) than with SPD (12.56%). The morbidity and mortality rates were similar between the two groups. The median OS was similar in the EPD and SPD groups by ITT in the whole study cohort (23.0 vs. 20.2 months, P = 0.100), while the median DFS was superior in the EPD group (16.1 vs. 13.2 months, P = 0.031). Patients with preoperative CA19-9 < 200.0 U/mL had significantly improved OS and DFS with EPD (EPD vs. SPD, 30.8 vs. 20.9 months, P = 0.009; 23.4 vs. 13.5 months, P < 0.001). The EPD group exhibited significantly lower locoregional (16.48% vs. 35.20%, P < 0.001) and mesenteric LN recurrence rates (3.98% vs. 10.06%, P = 0.022). The EPD group exhibited less back pain 6 months postoperation than the SPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
EPD for pancreatic head cancer did not significantly improve OS, but patients with EPD treatment had significantly improved DFS. In the subgroup analysis, improvements in both OS and DFS in the EPD arm were observed in patients with preoperative CA19-9 < 200.0 U/mL. EPD could be used as an effective surgical procedure for patients with pancreatic head cancer, especially those with preoperative CA19-9 < 200.0 U/mL.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; CA-19-9 Antigen; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Lymph Node Excision
PubMed: 36579790
DOI: 10.1002/cac2.12399 -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2022Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (RRR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower RRR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).
CONCLUSION
Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Therapeutic Index
PubMed: 35487420
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106633 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2014Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be performed competently; however when minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches are implemented the indication is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. Nonetheless, LDP and LPD afford improved perioperative outcomes, similar to those observed when MIS is utilized for other purposes. This includes decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced post-operative pain, and expedited time to functional recovery. What then is its role for resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma? The biology of this aggressive cancer and the inherent challenge of pancreatic surgery have slowed MIS progress in this field. In general, the overall quality of evidence is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, short follow-up intervals, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Available evidence compiles heterogeneous pathologic diagnoses and is limited by case-by-case follow-up, which makes extrapolation of results difficult. Nonetheless, short-term surrogate markers of oncologic success, such as margin status and lymph node harvest, are comparable to open procedures. Unfortunately disease recurrence and long-term survival data are lacking. In this review we explore the evidence available regarding laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a promising approach for future widespread application.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25339812
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i39.14255