Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers.

Importance: Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data. Objective: To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Exposures: The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C. Results: From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated. Conclusion and Relevance: In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

Hemorrhage of hepatocellular adenoma: a complication that can be treated by conservative management without surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage is the main complication of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA). The aim of this study was to describe a single center's evolving management of patients with hemorrhagic HCA. METHOD: Between 1990 and 2013, all patients with hemorrhagic HCA were included. During the study period, the management evolved from urgent surgery (period <2004) to arterial embolization with (period, 2004-2010) or without (period > 2010) delayed resection. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were identified. The median (range) size of HCA and the hematoma was 80 mm (35-160) and 50 mm (10-160). Patients were treated by urgent resection (group 1, n = 6), delayed resection with or without embolization (group 2, n = 43) and systematic embolization without surgery (group 3, n = 7). Embolization was performed in 0/6, 15/43 and 7/7 in groups 1, 2 and 3. Urgent resection was associated with higher morbidity (p < 0.001). Complete necrosis was observed in 0/6, 13/43 and 3/7 patients, and on histology it was associated with embolization (p = 0.001), a hematoma-tumor ratio > 60% (p = 0.046) and a cystic non-viable lesion before surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hemodynamic stability can be achieved in patients presenting with hemorrhagic HCA by none surgical means. Subsequent surgery can be completely avoided with such an approach in up to 40% of patients.

Safety of supramesocolic surgery in patients with portal cavernoma without portal vein decompression. Large single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Supra-mesocolic surgery (SMS) is complicated in patients with portal vein cavernoma (PC) and portal decompression is recommended. The aim of this study was to report a large single centre of SMS in patients with PC without portal decompression. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, all patients who met inclusion criteria were analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the feasibility rate, surgical and postoperative outcome. The secondary endpoints were the long-term outcome of patients who underwent biliary bypass for cholangitis. Risk factors for complications were studied. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent 51 procedures. Pancreatitis was the main etiology of PC (19/30) and biliary obstruction was mainly related to the underlying disease and not to portal cholangiopathy (12/14). All planned procedures were successfully completed. Fourteen patients underwent biliary bypass. Median blood loss (250 ml), transfusion (n = 7), mortality (n = 0), overall morbidity (n = 12) and the median hospital stay (10 days). Good long-term control of cholangitis was achieved in the 9 patients alive with available follow-up. Significant risk factors for complications were a previous abdominal wall scar, previous intra-abdominal surgical field and liver fibrosis. CONCLUSION: SMS can be safely performed in patients with PC. In patients with risk factors for complications, portal decompression should be discussed.