Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is gradually exceeding that of the open approach. Our study aims to compare short-term outcomes of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) using a national database. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients with PDAC who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010-2020. Short-term technical and oncologic outcomes such as margin status and nodal harvest were included. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed comparing LDP and RDP cohorts. Multivariate logistic-regression models were then used to assess the impact of institutional volume on the MIDP surgical and technical oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: 1537 patients underwent MIDP with curative intent. Most cases were laparoscopic (74.4%, n = 1144), with a gradual increase in robotic utilization, from 8.7% in 2010 to 32.0% of MIDP cases ten years later. For PSM, 698 LDP patients were matched with 349 RDP. The odds of conversion to an open case were 58% less in RDP (12.6%) compared to LDP (25.5%) with no statistically significant difference in technical oncologic results. There was no difference in length of stay (OR = 1.0[0.7-1.4]), 30-day mortality (OR = 0.5[0.2-2.0]) or 90-day mortality (OR = 1.1[0.5-2.4]) between RDP and LDP, although there was a higher 30-day readmission rate with RDP (OR = 1.71[1.1-2.7]). There were statistically significant differences in technical oncologic outcomes (nodal harvest, margin status, initiation of adjuvant therapy) based on MIDP volume quartiles. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy have similar peri- and post-operative surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a higher rate of conversion to open in the laparoscopic cohort.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. RESULTS: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. METHODS: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. RESULTS: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. METHODS: In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. RESULTS: Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC. METHODS: Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

Comparison of Educational and Academic Quality of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Videos on WebSurg® and YouTube® Platforms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the educational and academic quality of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) videos on YouTube® and WebSurg® platforms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: YouTube and WebSurg platforms were searched with the keyword "laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy". According to the exclusion criteria, 12 videos were found on WebSurg. To ensure a 1:1 ratio, the first 12 videos that met the criteria on YouTube were also analyzed. Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria were used to evaluate the reliability of the videos. The non-educational quality of the videos was calculated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the educational and academic quality of videos was calculated using Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy-specific score (LDP-SS) and Laparoscopic Surgery Video Educational Guidelines scoring system (LAP-VEGaS). RESULTS: The mean JAMA score was 1.58 on YouTube and 2.83 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median GQS was 2 on YouTube and 5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LAP-VEGaS score was 8 on YouTube and 14.5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LDP-SS score was 6 on YouTube and 9.5 on WebSurg (P = .001). According to the LAP-VEGaS, eleven (91.7%) of the WebSurg videos had a high score of 11 or more (P = .04). According to Spearman correlation analysis, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between LDP-SS and JAMA, GQS and LAP-VEGaS (r: .589, P = .002; r: .648, P = .001; r: .848, P < .001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The WebSurg is superior to the YouTube in terms of educational and academic value, quality, accuracy, reliability and usability in scientific meetings for LDP videos.

[Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for portal annular pancreas]. / Laparoskopicheskaya distal'naya rezektsiya podzheludochnoi zhelezy pri portal'noi kol'tsevidnoi podzheludochnoi zheleze.

Portal annular pancreas is a little-known anatomical variant of annular pancreas. In these patients, pancreatic parenchyma encircles the portal vein annularly. This anomaly is associated with high risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreatic surgery. Considering small incidence of anomaly and characteristics of surgery, we describe laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with preservation of spleen and splenic vessels in a patient with solid pseudopapillary tumor combined with portal annular pancreas. A 33-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic surgery for cystic-solid pancreatic tumor. Spleen-sparing distal pancreatectomy was performed. Portal annular pancreas was visualized intraoperatively and confirmed retrospectively after analysis of MR data. Ventral and dorsal parts of portal annular pancreas were transected using stapler device. Pancreatic fistula developed in postoperative period. The patient was discharged after 6 days with a drainage tube. Surgeons need to be aware of portal annular pancreas. This anomaly increases the risk of postoperative fistula. Transection of ventral and dorsal parts of annular pancreas using stapler device is the most acceptable option to reduce the risk of postoperative fistula.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP). METHODS: Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's robotic experience in a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. RESULTS: The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions. CONCLUSION: RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (L-RAMPS) with those of open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We reviewed, retrospectively, the medical records of 50 patients who underwent RAMPS for PDAC without resection of major vessels and adjacent organs between 2007 and 2019, and analyzed the relationship between the operative method and surgical and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 50 patients underwent L-RAMPS and 31 patients underwent O-RAMPS. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly less blood loss (P = 0.034) but a longer operative time (P = 0.001) than O-RAMPS. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, tumor factors, or postoperative course; or in the rates of recurrence-free survival (P = 0.084) or overall survival (P = 0.402) between the L-RAMPS and O-RAMPS groups. CONCLUSION: L-RAMPS for PDAC resulted in less blood loss but a longer operative time than O-RAMPS. Although L-RAMPS may be feasible, the operative time needs to be reduced by standardizing the procedure.

Efficacy of the slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

PURPOSE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most clinically relevant complication of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The present study evaluated the efficacy of the "slow firing method" using a reinforced triple-row stapler (Covidien, Tokyo, Japan) during LDP. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 73 consecutive patients who underwent LDP using the slow firing method. A black cartridge was used in all patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) after LDP. Secondary endpoints included perioperative outcomes and factors associated with CR-POPF as well as the correlation between the transection time and thickness of the pancreas. RESULTS: Four patients (5.5%) developed CR-POPF (grade B). Overall morbidity rates, defined as grade ≥ II and ≥ III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, were 21 and 11%, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 10 days. Preoperative diabetes (13.6 vs. 0.2%, P = 0.044) and thickness of the pancreas ≥ 15 mm (13.8% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) were identified as independent risk factors for CR-POPF. The median transection time was 16 (8-29) min. CONCLUSION: The slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for pancreatic transection is simple, safe, and effective for preventing CR-POPF after LDP.

Assessment of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical benefits of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as a treatment for pancreatic disease in the body or tail were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from 1 August 1990 to 1 July 2019. Studies comparing total LDP and ODP were included. RESULTS: In total, we reviewed 30 studies covering 4040 subjects. The analysis displayed a similar incidence of CR-POPF and POPF between ODP and LDP groups. The findings indicate that LDP correlates with fewer total complications, lower estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay and shorter postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the operation time, R0 resection, postoperative hemorrhage, number of lymph nodes collected, reoperation, major complications, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (2017) criteria in this meta-analysis showed that LDP had surgical outcomes comparable with those of ODP. However, LDP has the benefits of causing a relatively lower estimated blood loss, a small number of total complications, and a shorter hospital stay. We, however, note that further high-quality and controlled trials are required to comprehensively compare these treatments.

Division of the pancreas at the neck reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of pancreatic division at the body.

BACKGROUND: objectives: During laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the optimal site for pancreatic division with consideration of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is unclear. We evaluate which site of pancreatic division, neck or body, has better outcomes after LDP. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study. LDP was performed in 102 consecutive patients between December 2009 and May 2020. After excluding 14 patients with pancreatic division at tail, 88 patients (pancreatic division at neck n = 46, at body n = 42) were included in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes after LDP were compared between pancreatic division at neck and body. RESULTS: The pancreatic transection site was thicker at body than at neck (17.5 vs. 11.9 mm, P < 0.001), although there were no significant differences of pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size. The Grade B/C POPF rate was significantly higher when the pancreas was divided at body than when divided at neck (21.4 vs. 6.5%, P = 0.042). We found no significant differences between pancreatic division at neck and body in residual pancreatic volume (34.0 vs. 34.8 ml, P = 0.855), incidence of new-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus more than six months after LDP (P = 0.218), or body weight change (six-month: P = 0.116, one-year: P = 0.108, two-year: P = 0.195, tree-year: P = 0.131, four-year: P = 0.608, five-year: P = 0.408). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the pancreatic division at neck might reduce the Grade B/C POPF incidence after LDP, compared to division at body. A potential reason is that the pancreas at body is thicker than that at neck. However, further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Comparison of minimal invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single center retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was proposed a decade ago with the aim to achieve higher R0 tangential margin and radical N1 lymph node resection for left-sided pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which has been widely accepted worldwide at present. Laparoscopic RAMPS (Lap-RAMPS) has been attempted for PDAC during last several years, however, no outcomes evaluation by comparison between laparoscopic vs open RAMPS has been reported yet. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August, 2012 to March, 2018, patients undergoing open or lap-RAMPS for the diagnosis of left-sided PDAC were reviewed from a prospective database. Patients excluded if they were related with combined organs or vessels resection, systematic metastasis as well as conversion from open RAMPS to lap RAMPS. The surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 48 PDAC patients were enrolled (25 underwent lap-RAMPS and 23 underwent open-RAMPS). There were no significant differences in demographic or perioperative morbidity. In the lap-RAMPS group, R0 transection margin and retroperitoneal margin were both achieved in 23 of 25 patients (92%). In the open RAMPS group, R0 transection margin was achieved in 21 of 23 patients (91.3%), R0 retroperitoneal margin was 22 of 23 patients (95.65%). There were no differences in pathological examinations. The number of lymph node (LN) retrieved between lap-RAMPS and open- RAMPS group was not significant difference (15.84 vs 18.22; P = 0.268). Median disease-free survival (DFS) was analogous in two groups (18.11 m vs 20.00 m, P = 0.999). Median overall survival (OS) was 24.53 m in lap-RAMPS group and 28.73 m in the open-RAMPS group (P = 0.633). CONCLUSIONS: Lap-RAMPS is technically feasible, and has comparable long-term oncological outcome with open-RMAPS.

Investigation of intraoperative factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic left pancreatectomy with stapled closure: a video review-based analysis : Video-review for predictors of pancreatic leak.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains the most frequent complication, potential precursor of more serious events, and mechanisms behind POPF development are not clear. Primary aim of the current study is to investigate correlations between patients' characteristics, including technical intraoperative data assessed by retrospective video review of laparoscopic DP (L-PD), and development of clinically relevant (CR-)POPF and major complication. METHODS: Patients undergoing L-DP whose surgery video was available for review were included in this study. Retrospective video review, performed by two surgeons blinded for postoperative outcomes, was focused on pancreatic neck transection and identification of pancreatic capsule disruption (PCD)/staple line bleeding (SLB). Correlation between clinical, demographic, and intraoperative factors and CR-POPF/major complications and assessment of factors associated with PCD and SLB were investigated. RESULTS: Of 41 L-DP performed at our institution (June 2015-June 2020) using a triple-row stapler (EndoGIA™ Reloads with Tri-Staple™), surgery video was available for 38 patients [men/women, 13/25; median age (range) 62 (25-84) years; median BMI (range) 24 (17-42)]. PCD and SLB occurred in 15(39%) and 19(50%) patients and were concomitant in 9(24%). CR-POPF and major complications occurred in 8(21%) and 12(31%) patients, respectively. PCD, SLB, and PCD + SLB rates were significantly higher among patients with CR-POPF, compared to patients without (all p < 0.05). Among patients with PCD, pancreatic thickness at pancreatic transection site was higher (19 mm), compared to non-PCD patients (13 mm, p < 0.001). A directly proportional relation between PCD, CR-POPF, and major complication rate and pancreatic thickness was confirmed by ROC analysis (AUC = 0.949, 0.798, and 0.740, respectively). CONCLUSION: PCD and SLB close to the staple line detected by retrospective video-review are intraoperatively detectable indicators of severe pancreatic traumatism and a potential precursors of CR-POPF following L-PD. Given the strict correlation between PCD and pancreatic thickness, alternative techniques to stapled closure for pancreatic transection may be recommended for patients with a thick pancreas and modification in postoperative care may be considered in patients with PCD/SLB.

Evaluation of relationship between splenic artery and pancreatic parenchyma using three-dimensional computed tomography for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

AIM: Isolating the root of the splenic artery (SPA) is a challenging procedure in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We investigated the usefulness of evaluation of the relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma using three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT). METHODS: In total, 104 patients were evaluated. The relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma was classified into two types: buried and non-buried. Video clips of 50 patients who underwent LDP requiring isolation of the SPA root were reviewed to determine whether the classification is related to difficulty of LDP. RESULTS: Of the 50 assessed patients who underwent LDP, the relationship between the SPA and pancreatic parenchyma was the buried type in 30 (60.0%) and non-buried type in 20 (40.0%). The buried type was associated with a significantly longer median operative time than the non-buried type (285.0 vs. 235.5 min, respectively; P < 0.01). The median time required to isolate the SPA in the buried type (25.8 min; range, 4.0-101 min) was significantly longer than that in the non-buried type (7.0 min; range, 1.0-27.0 min) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative 3D-CT around the pancreas is practical for predicting the difficulty of SPA isolation and determining the safety of the procedure.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP. RESULTS: Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0-32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients. CONCLUSION: The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.

Conversion to open laparotomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: lessons from a single-center experience in 70 consecutive patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing conversion from laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open surgery, and the effect of such conversion on the outcome. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 70 consecutive patients undergoing LDP. The primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery during LDP. The secondary endpoints were determining the reasons for conversion to open surgery, with detailed analyses of these cases and a comparison of the surgical outcome with and without conversion. RESULTS: Seven patients (10%) required conversion to open surgery during LDP. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was identified as a risk factor for conversion (p = 0.010). The reasons for conversion included technical difficulty (two bleeding, one severe adhesion) and pancreatic stump-related issues (two margin-positive, two stapling failures). Although the overall morbidity rate (29 vs. 11%, p = 0.48) and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (14 vs. 5%, p = 0.82) were no different for the patients with or without open conversion, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the former (median 15 vs. 10 days, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Careful preoperative assessment is required when planning LDP for PDAC. Although conversion to open surgery does not result in failure of LDP, efforts to reduce the duration of postoperative hospital stay and the occurrence of complications are desirable to improve the outcome of LDP.