Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

International survey on opinions and use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: 5-year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey. RESULTS: Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Teaching modern pancreatic surgery: close relationship between centralization, innovation, and dissemination of care.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is increasingly moving towards centralization in high-volume centres, supported by evidence on the volume-outcome relationship. At the same time, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established worldwide, and interest in new techniques, such as robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, is growing. Such recent innovations are reshaping modern pancreatic surgery, but they also represent new challenges for surgical training in its current form. METHODS: This narrative review presents a chosen selection of literature, giving a picture of the current state of training in pancreatic surgery, together with the authors' own views, and in the context of centralization and innovation towards minimally invasive techniques. RESULTS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery at high-volume centres, volume-outcome relationships, innovation through minimally invasive technologies, learning curves in both traditional and minimally invasive surgery, and standardized training paths are the different, but deeply interconnected, topics of this article. Proper training is essential to ensure quality of care, but innovation and centralization may represent challenges to overcome with new training models. CONCLUSION: Innovations in pancreatic surgery are introduced with the aim of increasing the quality of care. However, their successful implementation is deeply dependent on dissemination and standardization of surgical training, adapted to fit in the changing landscape of modern pancreatic surgery.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC). METHODS: A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. CONCLUSION: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity.

Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drain strategy after distal pancreatectomy: A multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: /Objectives Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Traditionally, surgical drains are placed routinely after DP, but some question its efficacy and postulate that the use of drains may convert a self-limiting postoperative collection into a POPF. This study aimed to compare outcomes between three institutions with varying drainage strategies. METHODS: The study is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of intraoperative prophylactic drain placement during DP (2010-2019). The primary outcome is major morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to obtain comparable groups. RESULTS: Overall, 963 patients after DP were included. One center did not place a surgical drain routinely, but decided to place a drain when unsatisfactory pancreatic closure occurred. Prophylactic abdominal drains were placed in 805 patients (84%) of which 74 could be matched to 74 patients without a drain. The rate of major morbidity (8% vs 19%, p = 0.054) and radiological interventions (5% vs 12%, p = 0.147) were non-significantly lower in the no-drain group as compared to the prophylactic drain group, respectively. The rates of POPF (4% vs 16%, p = 0.014) were lower in the no-drain group. CONCLUSION: In this international retrospective multicenter study, a selective no-drain strategy after DP was not associated with higher rates major morbidity or radiological interventions as compared to routine prophylactic abdominal drainage. Although the rate of POPF was lower in the no-drain group, randomized trials should confirm the safety and outcome of a no-drain strategy after DP.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with conflicting results. An IPDMA may give more insight into the differences between LPD and OPD, and could identify high-risk subgroups. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases (October 2019). Out of 1410 studies, three randomized trials were identified. Primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III). Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk subgroups including patients with BMI of ≥25 kg/m2, pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, and malignancy. RESULTS: Data from 224 patients were collected. After LPD, major complications occurred in 33/114 (29%) patients compared to 34/110 (31%) patients after OPD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.4, P = 0.257). No differences were seen for major complications and 90-day mortality LPD 8 (7%) vs OPD 4 (4%) (adjusted OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-1.3, P = 0.080). With LPD, operative time was longer (420 vs 318 min, p < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean difference -6.97 days). Outcomes remained stable in the high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSION: LPD did not reduce the rate of major postoperative complications as compared to OPD. LPD increased operative time and shortened hospital stay with 7 days.

Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs). METHODS: Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others. RESULTS: A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3).

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation. BACKGROUND: Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. RESULTS: Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

Long-Term Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive vs Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the LEOPARD Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) shortens time to functional recovery and improves 30-day quality of life (QoL), as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for nonmalignant disease. The impact of MIDP on QoL, cosmetic satisfaction, and overall major complications beyond 1-year follow-up is currently unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD) trial randomized 108 patients to MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or ODP in 14 Dutch centers (April 2015 to March 2017). The primary outcome measure of this study was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as assessed with the EQ-5D. QoL was assessed using subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, PAN-26, and a body image questionnaire. The latter included a cosmetic satisfaction score (range 3-24), and a body image score (range 5-20). Differences between MIDP and ODP for QALYs, generic, and disease-specific QoL and body image were analyzed. Missing QoL data were imputed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: In total, 84 patients were alive, with a median follow-up of 44 months; 62 of these patients (74%) completed the questionnaires (27 MIDP, 35 ODP). There was no significant difference in QALYs between the 2 groups (mean score 2.34 vs 2.46 years, p = 0.63), nor on the QoL subscales. Significant overall change in EQ-5D health utilities were found for both groups over time (p < 0.001). Patients in the MIDP group scored higher on cosmetic satisfaction (21 vs 14, p = 0.049). No differences between the 2 groups were observed for clinical outcomes such as major complications, readmissions, and incisional hernias. CONCLUSIONS: More than 3 years after distal pancreatectomy, no improvement in QALYs and overall QoL was seen after MIDP, whereas cosmetic satisfaction was higher after MIDP as compared with ODP.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP. METHODS/DESIGN: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.