A modified Blumgart anastomosis with a simple and practicable procedure after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: our center's experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy(LPD) has become the goal of lots of minimally invasive surgical centers in recent years. Postoperative pancreatic fistula(POPF) is still the barrier to attaining the above goal. Thus, improving anastomosis techniques to reduce the rate of POPF has been a hotspot of surgery. Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy is considered one of the best anastomosis procedures, with low rates of POPF. However, the original Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy method is not easy for laparoscopic operation. In consequence, we modified a Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy technique with a simple and practicable procedure and applied to LPD. METHODS: We collected and retrospectively analyzed the perioperative clinical data of patients who underwent modified Blumgart anastomosis from February 2017 to September 2022. The above patients included 53 cases in open pancreaticojejunostomy(OPD) and 58 cases in LPD. After propensity score matching, 44 cases were included for comparison in each group. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the average time for pancreaticojejunostomy was about 30 min in the LPD group. The Clinically relevant POPF(CR-POPF) rate was 9.1%. The length of postoperative hospitalization was 13.1 days. Compared with the OPD group, The CR-POPF rate in the LPD group are not significant differences. But the postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LPD group. Besides, there were no other severely postoperative complications between two groups. CONCLUSION: The modified Blumgart anastomosis technique applied to LPD in our Center not only has simple and convenient properties but also low rate of CR-POPF. And this method may be a good choice for surgeons to begin to carry out LPD.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: surgical and oncological outcomes from pilot experience.

PURPOSE: Venous resection and reconstruction (VR) is a feasible surgical technique to achieve optimal outcomes in selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who undergo open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, data regarding patient outcomes in patients who undergo VR in robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are scarce. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of PDAC who underwent upfront open or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with VR in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the RPD and OPD cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were included in the final analysis, 14 patients underwent RPD with VR and 70 who had OPD with VR. Reconstructed venous patency, postoperative 30-day morbidity, and 90-day mortality were comparable; however, lymph node resection rates were lower in the RPC cohort (p = 0.029). No difference was identified in 3-year survival rates between the two groups (34.0% versus 25.7% respectively, p = 0.667). CONCLUSION: RPD with VR is a feasible approach for patients with PDAC and venous invasion. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

Readmission and Resource Use After Robotic-Assisted versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: 2010-2017.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned rehospitalization is considered an adverse quality of care indicator. Minimally invasive operations carry the potential to reduce resource use while enhancing recovery. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been used to improve outcomes of its morbid open counterpart. We sought to identify factors associated with readmission between RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the 2010-17 National Readmissions Database to identify adults who underwent RAPD or OPD. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included readmission diagnosis: index, readmission, and total (index + readmission) length of stay, costs, and mortality. RESULTS: Of an estimated 84,036 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 96.9% survived index hospitalization. Frequency of both RAPD and OPD increased during the study period with similar mortality (2.5% versus 3.2%, P = 0.46). Compared with OPD, RAPD was not an independent predictor of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.0, P = 0.98). Disposition with home health care (AOR: 1.1, P < 0.001) or to a skilled nursing facility (AOR: 1.5, P < 0.001) was significantly associated with increased 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy is common, regardless of surgical approach. Although RAPD saves in-patient days on index admission, readmission rates and length of stay are similar between the two modalities. Neither RAPD nor OPD is a risk factor for readmission, highlighting the complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy, with complications that may result from factors independent of the operative approach.

Laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: an important link in the process of transition from open to total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The safety of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy still remains controversial. Laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) may be an alternative selection. The purpose of the present study is to compare a consecutive cohort of LAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) from a single surgeon. METHODS: A comparison was conducted between LAPD and OPD from January 2013 to December 2018. Perioperative outcomes and short-term oncological results were compared. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine associations among variables. RESULTS: 133 patients were enrolled, 36 patients (27.1%) underwent LAPD and 97 (72.9%) underwent OPD. No 30-day and 90-day mortality occurred. LAPD was associated with decreased intraoperative estimated blood loss (300 versus 500 ml; P = 0.002), longer operative time (372 versus 305 min; P < 0.001) compared with OPD. LAPD had a conversion rate of 16.7%, and wasn't associated with an increased grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate, major surgical complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, reoperation rate or length of hospital stay after surgery. In the subset of 58 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, R0 resection rate, median total harvested lymph node or lymph nodes ≥12 did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LAPD could be performed with non-inferior short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes achieved by OPD in selected patients.

Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.

Pancreatic head cancer: Open or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Pancreatic head cancer still represents an insurmountable barrier for patients and pancreatic surgeons. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) continues to be the operative standard of care and potentially curative procedure for pancreatic head cancer. Despite the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques, whether the efficacy of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is noninferior or superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear. In this review, we summarized the history of OPD and MIPD and the latest staging and classification information for pancreatic head cancer as well as the proposed recommendations for MIPD indications for patients with pancreatic head cancer. By reviewing the MIPD- vs. OPD-related literature, we found that MIPD shows noninferiority or superiority to OPD in terms of safety, feasibility, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and several short-term and long-term outcomes. In addition, we analyzed and summarized the different MIPD outcomes in the USA, Europe and China. Certain debates over MIPD have continued, however, selection bias, the large number of low-volume centers, the steep MIPD learning curve, high conversion rate and administration of neoadjuvant therapy may limit the application of MIPD for pancreatic head cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE: The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD -312.00 ml, 95 % CI -436.30 to -187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30-0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20-0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.57 days, 95 % CI -5.17 to -1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03-2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60-131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Operative Time, Oncological Outcomes, Bleeding, Morbidity, and Mortality.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients.

Purposes: To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from cohort studies. Methods: Outcomes of interest include operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate and 90-day mortality. Results: 6 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were included. Five of these studies were limited to patients with pancreatic cancer. Operative time was significantly longer in RPD (WMD: 64.60 min; 95% CI: 26.89 to 102.21; p = 0.001). Estimated blood loss was lower in RPD (WMD: -185.44 ml; 95% CI: -239.66 to -131.21; p < 0.001). Overall complication rates (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and pancreatic fistula rate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; p < 0.001) were both lower in RPD. Length of hospital stay was longer in OPD (WMD: -1.90; 95% CI: -2.47 to -1.33). 90-day mortality was lower in RPD [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.025]. Conclusion: At current level of evidence, RPD is a safer alternative than OPD with regard to post-operative outcomes and blood loss. However, in terms of oncological outcomes RPD show no advantage over OPD, and the cost of RPD was higher. In general, RPD is now considered a reliable technology, but high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are still needed to support this conclusion.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and poor functional reserve remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPD in elderly patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies published from their inception to January 2022 reporting perioperative outcomes after LPD in elderly patients were included in the search (Group 1, comparing the perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in elderly patients; Group 2, comparing the perioperative outcomes after LPD between elderly and non-elderly patients). The evaluated outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative complications, conversion, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and readmission. Results: In total 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of Group 1 showed that EBL, 90-day mortality, major morbidity, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, POP, POCE, and readmission were not significantly different between the LPD and the OPD group. LPD was associated with longer operative time, lower POPF rate, lower DEG rate, and shorter POHS. Pooled analysis of Group 2 showed that mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DEG, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, conversion, operative time, EBL, and readmission were not significantly different between the elderly and the non-elderly group. The POHS of elderly group was significantly longer than non-elderly group. Conclusion: LPD may be a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients and is associated with short POHS.

Assessing the perioperative complications and outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy using the National Cancer Database: is it ready for prime time?

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy has generated significant interest in recent years. Our study aimed to evaluate the difference in surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) by either a robotic (RPD) or open approach (OPD). Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients from 2010 and 2017 diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy by either robotic PD or open approach. Patients who underwent robotic PD during 2010 were compared to patients receiving the same procedure in 2017. In addition, a secondary analysis was performed to assess outcomes of robotic PD to open PD for the 2017 patient cohorts. Our primary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, as well as 30-day readmission. Secondary outcome measures were surgical margins, lymph node yield, and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation within 12 weeks of surgery. When we compared the 2017 data to 2010 data, we found that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower 30- and 90-day mortality rates in 2017 compared to 2010. Additionally, we found that the lymph node yield in robotic PD increased during the study period. When we compared robotic PD to open PD for 2017, we found no statistically significant differences in readmission rates (10.1% vs. 9.7%: p-0.4), lymph node yield, or negative margin between the groups. Outcomes of robotic PD have improved over the years. In 2017, outcomes of robotic PD were similar to open PD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies.

Objective: This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. Background: LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832). Results: Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001). Conclusions: LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a less invasive alternative to the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) approach used to treat periampullary tumors. However, previous studies examining the advantages of this surgery over OPD have produced mixed results. Here, a retrospective observational approach was used to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with periampullary tumors who underwent LPD or OPD at a single institution in Vietnam. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from hospital medical records collected over five years from patients that underwent OPD or LPD. Information on demographics, medical status, tumor characteristics, operative variables, complications, and mortality was examined. Survival curves were constructed and the stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients aged 26-80 years were included. Twenty-two patients underwent LPD and 62 received OPD. The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group, and the LPD group was less likely to require a blood transfusion during surgery. While the short- and long-term survival rates did not differ for the procedures, the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and an age >65 years. CONCLUSION: Both LPD and OPD procedures for treating periampullary tumors exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival rates observed. Future studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to further examine the treatment outcomes following these surgical approaches.

Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes following laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy after learning curve in the past 10 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years. METHODS: A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph node dissection). RESULTS: Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91-1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54-1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82-1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64-1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80-1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65-1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients' outcomes.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of nonpancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in place of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the results of LPD versus OPD in non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinoma (NPPC), a less aggressive tumor. METHODS: Here, 488 NPPC patients who underwent LPD or OPD were analyzed in this study. The propensity score matching was used to balance the patients in two groups. Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the differences between LPD and OPD in patients with NPPC. RESULTS: The LPD group had shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and less postoperative hospital stay than OPD group. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were significantly lower in LPD than in OPD group. There was no statistical difference in long-term survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For NPPC, LPD may be the preferred surgical treatment due to its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative blood loss and short-term mortality.

The comparation of short-term outcome between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex and delicate operations in abdominal surgery. With the development of laparoscopic techniques, more and more pancreatic experts have become skilled in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, the short-term efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear. Here, we performed a propensity score matching study aiming to compare the short outcomes of patients who underwent LPD or OPD after the learning curve and established a risk model of pancreatic fistula. The data of 346 patients who had OPD or LPD from July 2015 to January 2020 were retrieved. After a 1:1 matching, 224 patients remained. The operation time was significantly longer (P = 0.001) but the amount of bleeding was significantly lower (P = 0.001) in the LPD group than in the OPD group. Patients in LPD group had fewer blood transfusions (P = 0.002) than those in OPD group. More lymph nodes (P < 0.001) were dissected in LPD group. The rate of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was significantly higher in the LPD group than in the OPD group (16.1% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.002). By multi variate Logistic regression analysis, we identified pancreatic tumor, malignancy and low body mass index were risk factors of Grade B/C pancreatic fistula after PD operation. Then, we developed a Grade B/C pancreatic fistula nomogram with the risk factors. The C-index of the nomogram was 0.836 (95% CI 0.762-0.910). In conclusion, LPD could be technically feasible, get less trauma and achieve similar short-term outcome as compared with OPD.

The effectiveness, risks and improvement of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propensity score-matched analyses comparing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) that consider the effect of the learning curve for LPD are lacking. We use Propensity score-matched to compare the safety and efficacy of LPD during the learning curve to OPD. METHODS: The medical records of 296 consecutive patients who had undergone LPD or OPD between September 2016 and August 2019 at Fujian Provincial Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with LPD were matched 1:1 to those treated with OPD. Calculation of propensity scores considered age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, pathology, incidence of obstructive jaundice, incidence of biliary drainage, pancreatic texture, pancreatic duct diameter, previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, and case distribution of the surgical team. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 196 patients were divided into two groups: 98 patients in the LPD group and 98 patients in the OPD group. LPD performed during the learning curve was associated with a longer median operative time (OT) (432 vs. 328 min, P<0.001), a higher incidence of major surgery-associated complications (32.7% vs. 14.3%, P=0.002), a higher incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (27.6% vs. 13.3%, P=0.013), and prolonged LOS (21.06 d vs. 16.94 d, P=0.033), but lower median intraoperative blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P<0.001) compared to OPD. Mean OT and LOS were significantly shorter in the late phase of the learning curve for LPD (P<0.001), and were similar to that for OPD. Age >60 years and a non-dilated MPD were significant predictors of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, major surgery-associated complications, prolonged LOS and postoperative mortality at 90 days (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: OT, incidence of major surgery-associated complications, and LOS were significantly increased in patients that underwent LPD, but were significantly improved during the learning curve. Elderly patients and patients with a non-dialated MPD should not be treated with LPD performed by inexperienced surgeons.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison.

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is progressively gaining momentum. It seems to provide some potential advantages over open approach. Unfortunately, only few studies investigated the impact of RPD on the oncologic outcomes. We performed a 1:1 case-matched comparison between two groups of 35 patients affected by a malignant tumor who underwent RPD and open (OPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy from August 2014 to April 2016. Operative time was longer in the RPD group compared to OPD (355 vs 262 min, p = 0.023), whereas median blood loss (235 vs 575 ml, p = 0.016) and length of hospitalization (6.5 vs 8.9 days, p = 0.041) were lower for RPD. A significant reduction of overall postoperative morbidity rate was found in the RPD group compared to the OPD group (31.4% vs 48.6% p = 0.034). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of overall pancreatic fistula rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph nodes. The overall and disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years were similar. RPD is a safe and effective technique. It reduces the estimated blood loss, the length hospital of stay and the rate of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy, while preserving a good oncologic adequacy.

Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD. AIM: To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates. RESULTS: A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, P < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, P = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, P < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, P = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, P < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), P < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, P = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, P = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, P = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, P < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.