Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Robotic Dual-Console Distal Pancreatectomy: Could it be Considered a Safe Approach and Surgical Teaching even in Pancreatic Surgery? A Retrospective Observational Study Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy METHODS: The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG). RESULTS: In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System®. This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the Verona experience.

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive approach in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has currently been emphasized in benign and pre-malignant pancreatic diseases. The study aims to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of our technique of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) by a stepwise approach. METHODS: The data of consecutive patients presented for RSPDP from 2014 to 2019 at Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed, such as Kimura's (KG) or Warshaw's (WG) technique, and then compared. RESULTS: In the study period, 32 patients underwent RSPDP. Twenty-three patients presented for the Kimura procedure (72%), while nine patients underwent the Warshaw procedure (28%). A higher body mass index was found in the KG (26 ± 4 vs. 22 ± 3, p = 0.037). Regarding the pathological data, the WG group differed in the tumor dimension, and the lymph nodes harvested (30 ± 2 vs. 17 ± 10, 9 ± 5 vs. 3 ± 4, p = 0.0028, and p = 0.005, respectively). Notably, no conversions and mortality were recorded. The overall morbidity was 25% ( eight patients) with no difference between the groups (p = 0.820). The mean length of stay was 8 days, and was similar between the groups (p = 0.350). CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that RSPDP is a valid option for the treatment of benign or pre-malignant pancreatic diseases of the distal pancreas, with comparable morbidity with the standard treatment and no mortality. Further research is needed to standardize the technique and to assess the immunological, surgical, and financial benefits of the procedure.

Use of an intraoperative wound protector to prevent surgical-site infection after pancreatoduodenectomy: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infection (SSI) increases treatment costs, duration of hospital stay and readmission rate after pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to assess whether a wound protector could reduce the risk of superficial incisional SSI after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This RCT included patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy at Verona University Hospital, between 2017 and 2018. The experimental group had a dual-ring wound protector, whereas the control group had standard surgical drapes. The groups were stratified by preoperative biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the overall rate of superficial SSI. RESULTS: An interim analysis was conducted after 212 patients had been enrolled; 22 patients (10·4 per cent) were excluded owing to inability to complete the pancreatoduodenectomy, or the need for postoperative reintervention. Some 94 patients (49·5 per cent) had a wound protector and 96 (50·5 per cent) had standard drapes. There were no differences between groups in demographics, or in intraoperative findings, pathological data or surgical outcomes. The overall superficial SSI rate was 7·4 per cent, which did not differ between groups (7 per cent in each group; P = 0·585). Subanalysis of patients with a preoperative biliary stent showed a similar outcome (superficial SSI rate 9 versus 8 per cent with wound protector versus surgical drapes respectively; P = 0·536). The trial was stopped prematurely on the grounds of futility. CONCLUSION: Use of a wound protector did not reduce the rate of superficial SSI after pancreatoduodenectomy. Registration number: NCT03820648 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La infección de la herida quirúrgica (surgical-site infection, SSI), especialmente de la incisión, aumenta sobremanera los costes del tratamiento, la duración de la estancia y la tasa de reingresos en la cirugía de páncreas. En los últimos años se han introducido los protectores de las heridas (wound protectors, WP) con la intención de reducir la tasa de SSI. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar si un WP podría reducir la incidencia de la SSI superficial de la incisión (superficial incisional surgical-site infection, SI-SSI) en pacientes sometidos a duodenopancreatectomía cefálica (pancreaticoduodenectomy, PD). MÉTODOS: Ensayo aleatorizado controlado en el que se incluyeron los pacientes a los que se realizó una PD en la Universidad de Verona entre 2017 y 2018. En el grupo experimental se utilizó un WP de doble anillo, mientras que el grupo control se utilizaron tallas quirúrgicas convencionales (standard drape, SD). Los grupos se estratificaron también según la colocación preoperatoria de una prótesis biliar. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 212 pacientes, de los que 22 (10%) abandonaron el estudio debido a la imposibilidad de realizar la DP o a la necesidad de una reintervención durante el curso postoperatorio. Los pacientes se dividieron en 94 (49%) en el grupo WP y 96 (51%) en el grupo SD. No se detectaron diferencias entre grupos en cuanto a las variables demográficas y a los resultados intraoperatorios, patológicos o quirúrgicos. La tasa global de SI-SSI fue del 7,4%, que no difirió entre los grupos (WP 7,5% versus SD 7,3%, P = 0,585). Teniendo en cuenta los resultados descritos, se cumplieron los criterios de futilidad del análisis y el ensayo se interrumpió prematuramente. CONCLUSIÓN: En el entorno de un centro de alto volumen, la WP por si sola no redujo la tasa de SI-SSI. Cabría plantear su utilización dentro de un programa multimodal, que debería incluir un replanteamiento interno de la institución encaminado a la reducción de complicaciones infecciosas.