Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

Russian Consensus on Exo- and Endocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Surgical Treatment.

The Russian consensus on exo- and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency after surgical treatment was prepared on the initiative of the Russian Pancreatic Club using the Delphi method. Its goal was to consolidate the opinions of national experts on the most relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of exo- and endocrine insufficiency after surgical interventions on the pancreas. An interdisciplinary approach is ensured by the participation of leading gastroenterologists and surgeons.

One hundred and forty five total laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies: A single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) remains one of the most challenging minimal invasive operations today. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2016, 197 patients were scheduled for LPD but 162 patients (from January 2007 to July 2016) were analysed in this cohort series. RESULTS: Total LPD concerned for 162 patients (five patients did not undergo PD and 12 underwent conversion): standard LPD in 104 patients (66%), and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving PD in 41 patients (26%). Median operative time was 415 (240-765) min. Median blood loss was 200 (50-2100) ml. Twelve patients required blood transfusion. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grades B and C) occurred in 21 (13%) patients: 16 (10.0%) grade B, and 5 (3%) grade C. Grades B and C delayed gastric emptying occurred in five patients each. Grades B and C post-pancreatectomy bleeding occurred in 9 (5.7%) and 3 (1.9%) patients, respectively. LPD was performed for 18 (11.4%) benign and 139 (88.5%) malignant lesions. Superior mesenteric and/or portal vein involvement required major venous resection in eight patients. The 90-day mortality 5.0%. The median overall survival for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 22.5 months. CONCLUSION: Morbidity and mortality for LPD are comparable to open procedures rates in the literature. Laparoscopic major venous resection is feasible and safe.

Survival outcome and prognostic factors after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the most common operative procedure performed for distal bile duct carcinoma. Data on outcome after surgery for this rare malignancy is scarce, especially from western countries. The purpose of this study is to explore the prognostic factors and outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma. METHODS: Patients receiving pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma were identified from institutional databases of five German and one Russian academic centers for pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable general linear model, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression were used to identify prognostic factors for postoperative mortality and overall survival. RESULTS: N = 228 patients operated from 1994 to 2015 were included. Reoperation (OR 5.38, 95%CI 1.51-19.22, p = 0.010), grade B/C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 3.73, 95%CI 1.13-12.35, p = 0.031), grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 4.29, 95%CI 1.25-14.72, p = 0.038), and advanced age (OR 4.00, 95%CI 1.12-14.03, p = 0.033) were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality in multivariable analysis. Median survival was 29 months, 5-year survival 27%. Positive resection margin (HR 2.07, 95%CI 1.29-3.33, p = 0.003), high tumor grade (HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.13-2.58, p = 0.010), lymph node (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.13-2.51, p = 0.011), and distant metastases (HR 2.70, 95%CI 1.21-5.58, p = 0.014), as well as severe non-fatal postoperative complications (HR 1.64, 95%CI 1.04-2.58, p = 0.033) were independent negative prognostic factors for survival in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Distant metastases and positive resection margin are the strongest negative prognostic factors for survival after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma; thus, surgery with curative intent is only warranted in patients with local disease, where R0 resection is feasible.

Superior mesenteric-portal vein resection during laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) with concomitant resection of major portal vessels has recently emerged as feasible and safe, with similar morbidity and mortality as well as oncologic outcome compared with patients undergoing open PD with major vascular resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of a consecutive series of 133 LPD, eight patients underwent concomitant superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) resection and reconstruction with the intent of achieving a R0 resection. RESULTS: Four of these eight patients had tangential resection followed by lateral wall repair with Prolene 4.0. One patient had tangential resection with patch reconstruction. Three patients had circular venous resection: One had end-to-end primary venous reconstruction, and two patients had a prosthetic vascular graft interposition. There was no operative mortality. The SMV/PV was patent in all patients postoperatively on ultrasound Doppler or CT scans. Two patients (who underwent circular venous resection) had postoperative complications. One 77-year-old patient with preexisting cardiovascular disease died of heart failure on postoperative day 2, while another (undergoing prosthetic graft reconstruction) had postoperative bilioenteric anastomotic dehiscence and underwent immediate re-laparoscopy for repair. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, LPD with concomitant major venous resection is feasible even in cases of longitudinal venous invasion. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in borderline pancreatic cancer.