Distal Pancreatectomy for Body Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Is Splenectomy Necessary? A Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The value of splenectomy for body localization (≥ 5 cm from spleen hilum) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (B-PDAC) is uncertain. This study assessed spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) results for B-PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center study included patients who underwent SPDP (Warshaw's technique) or distal splenopancreactomy (DSP) for B-PDAC from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to balance SPDP and DSP patients regarding sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), body mass index (BMI), laparoscopy, pathological features [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/tumor node metastasis classification (TNM)], margins, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (64 male, median age 68 years, median BMI 24 kg/m2) were enrolled with a median follow-up of 63 months (95% CI 52-96 months), including 59 (46%) SPDP and 70 (54%) DSP patients. A total of 39 SPDP patients were matched to 39 DSP patients. SPDP patients had fewer harvested nodes (19 vs 22; p = 0.038) with a similar number of positive nodes (0 vs 0; p = 0.237). R0 margins were achieved similarly in SPDP and DSP patients (75% vs 71%; p = 0.840). SPDP patients were associated with decreased comprehensive complication index (CCI, 8.7 vs 16.6; p = 0.004), rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, 14% vs 29%; p = 0.047), and hospital stay (11 vs 16 days; p < 0.001). SPDP patients experienced similar disease-free survival (DFS, 5 years: 38% vs 32%; p = 0.180) and overall survival (OS, 5 years 54% vs 44%; p = 0.710). After matching, SPDP patients remained associated with lower CCI (p = 0.034) and hospital stay (p = 0.028) while not associated with risks of local recurrence (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.28-2.62; p = 0.781), recurrence (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.61-1.78; p = 0.888), or death (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.68-2.11; p = 0.556). CONCLUSION: SPDP for B-PDAC is associated with less postoperative morbidity than DSP, without impairing oncological outcomes.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Technical Strategy for Pancreatic Body Cancers: A Raison d'etre of Distal Pancreatectomy with Portal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in multiagent chemotherapy have expanded the surgical indications for pancreatic cancer. Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR) has become widely adopted, distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR remains rarely performed because of its technical complexity. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of DP-PVR compared with PD-PVR for pancreatic body cancers, with a focus on PV complications and providing optimal reconstruction techniques when DP-PVR is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive pancreatic body cancer patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR between 2005 and 2020. An algorithm based on the anatomical relationship between the arteries and PV was used for optimal surgical selection. RESULTS: Among 119 patients, 32 underwent DP-PVR and 87 underwent PD-PVR. Various reconstruction techniques were employed in DP-PVR cases, including patch reconstruction, graft interposition, and wedge resection. The majority of PD-PVR cases involved end-to-end anastomosis. The length of PVR was shorter in DP-PVR (25 vs. 40 mm; p < 0.001). Although Clavien-Dindo ≥3a was higher in DP-PVR (p = 0.002), inpatient mortality and R0 status were similar. Complete PV occlusion occurred more frequently in DP-PVR than in PD-PVR (21.9% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 30 mm for PVR length was determined to be predictive of nonrecurrence-related PV occlusion after DP-PVR. The two groups did not differ significantly in recurrence or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: DP-PVR had higher occlusion and postoperative complication rates than PD-PVR. These findings support the proposed algorithm and emphasize the importance of meticulous surgical manipulation when DP-PVR is deemed necessary.

Prognostic impact of the distance from the root of splenic artery to tumor in the patients with pancreatic body or tail cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the distance from the root of splenic artery to tumor (DST) on the prognosis and optimal surgical procedures in the patients with pancreatic body/tail cancer has been unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 94 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and 17 patients who underwent DP with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) between 2008 and 2018. RESULTS: The 111 patients were assigned by DST length (in mm) as DST = 0: n = 14, 0

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.

Optimal cutoff values of drain amylase for predicting pancreatic fistula are different between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Drainage fluid amylase (DFA) is useful for predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). However, difference in optimal cutoff value of DFA for predicting CR-POPF between open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP) has not been investigated. This study aimed to identify the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF after ODP and LDP. METHODS: Data for 294 patients (ODP, n = 127; LDP, n = 167) undergoing DP at Kobe University Hospital between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize treatment selection bias. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF for ODP and LDP. Logistic regression analysis for CR-POPF was performed to investigate the diagnostic value of DFA on postoperative day (POD) three with identified cutoff value. RESULTS: In the matched cohort, CR-POPF rates were 24.7% and 7.9% after ODP and LDP, respectively. DFA on POD one was significantly lower after ODP than after LDP (2263 U/L vs 4243 U/L, p < 0.001), while the difference was not significant on POD three (543 U/L vs 1221 U/L, p = 0.171). ROC analysis revealed that the optimal cutoff value of DFA on POD one and three for predicting CR-POPF were different between ODP and LDP (ODP, 3697 U/L on POD one, 1114 U/L on POD three; LDP, 10564 U/L on POD one, 6020 U/L on POD three). Multivariate analysis showed that DFA on POD three with identified cutoff value was the independent predictor for CR-POPF both for ODP and LDP. CONCLUSIONS: DFA on POD three is an independent predictor for CR-POPF after both ODP and LDP. However, the optimal cutoff value for it is significantly higher after LDP than after ODP. Optimal threshold of DFA for drain removal may be different between ODP and LDP.

Comparison of manual sutures and laparoscopic stapler for pancreatic stump closure techniques in robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are prevalent and major postoperative complications of distal pancreatectomy (DP). There are numerous ways to manage the pancreatic stump. However, no single approach has been shown to be consistently superior. Moreover, the potential role of robotic systems in reducing POPFs has received little attention. METHODS: The clinical data of 119 patients who had consecutively received robotic distal pancreatectomy between January 2019 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of handling the pancreatic stump. The attributes of the patients and the variables during the perioperative period were compared. RESULTS: The analysis included 72 manual sutures and 47 stapler procedures. The manual suture group had a shorter operative time (removing installation time) than the stapler group (125.25 ± 63.04 min vs 153.30 ± 62.03 min, p = 0.019). Additionally, the manual suture group had lower estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 100 mL, p = 0.009) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in the incidence of clinically relevant POPFs between the two groups (18.1% vs 23.4%, P > 0.05). No perioperative death occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: The manual suturing technique was shown to have an incidence of POPFs similar to the stapler technique in robotic distal pancreatectomy and to be safe and feasible.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Early Drain Removal Versus Routine Drain Removal After Pancreaticoduodenectomy and/or Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Early drain removal (EDR) has been widely accepted, but not been routinely used in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and benefits of EDR versus routine drain removal (RDR) after PD or DP. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on medical search engines from January 1, 2008 to November 1, 2023, for articles that compared EDR versus RDR after PD or DP. The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Further analysis of studies including patients with low-drain fluid amylase (low-DFA) on postoperative day 1 and defining EDR timing as within 3 days was also performed. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven non-RCTs with a total of 9465 patients were included in this analysis. For the primary outcome, the EDR group had a significantly lower rate of CR-POPF (OR 0.23; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, a lower incidence was observed in delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.63, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), postoperative hemorrhage (OR 0.55, p = 0.02), reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.70, p = 0.003) and length of stay (MD -2.04, p < 0.001) in EDR. Consistent outcomes were observed in the subgroup analysis of low-DFA patients and definite EDR timing, except for postoperative hemorrhage in EDR. CONCLUSION: EDR after PD or DP is beneficial and safe, reducing the incidence of CR-POPF and other postoperative complications. Further prospective studies and RCTs are required to validate this finding.

Proposal of the novel predictive model for postoperative pancreatic fistula in distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic tumor based on preoperative imaging parameters and stapler handling.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) using linear staplers is widely performed; however, postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) remain an issue. This study aimed to analyze preoperative risk factors for POPF and assess stapler handling. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent DP for pancreatic tumors using a linear stapler between 2014 and 2022. Preoperative measurements included pancreas-to-muscle signal intensity ratio (SIR) on fat-suppressed T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The main outcome was clinically relevant POPF of the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistulas definition. The predictive ability of the model was compared with the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Among the 81 patients, POPF occurred in 31 (38.2%). Multivariate analysis identified computed tomography-measured pancreatic thickness (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.61, p = 0.009) and SIR on T1-weighted MRI (OR 6.85, 95% CI 1.71-27.4, p = 0.002) as preoperative predictors. A novel preoperative model, "Thickness × MRI (TM)"-index, was established by multiplying these two variables. The TM-index exhibited the highest predictability preoperatively (AUROC 0.757, 95% CI 0.649-0.867). In the intraoperative variable analyses, TM-index (p < 0.001), thin cartridge application (p = 0.032), and short pre-firing compression (p = 0.047) were identified as significant risk factors for POPF. The model's AUROC combined with these two stapler handling methods was higher than D-FRS (0.851 vs. 0.660, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The novel preoperative model exhibited excellent predictability. Thick cartridge use and long pre-firing compression were protective factors against POPF. This model may facilitate preventive surgical strategy development to reduce POPF.

Preoperative zinc status predicts the occurrence and healing time of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies that examined the relationship between preoperative zinc (Zn) concentrations and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Data from 98 patients who underwent DP between January 2016 and April 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' clinicopathological and surgical outcomes were analyzed, and we examined the relationship between Zn and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) after DP. RESULTS: In this series, 41 (41.8%) patients had POPF and 31 (31.8%) patients had CR-POPF. The cut-off value for the preoperative Zn concentration was 74 µg/dL for POPF and CR-POPF. Patients with low Zn concentrations were significantly related with high age, low albumin concentrations, higher CRP concentrations, higher NLR, lower PNI, higher rates of POPF and CR-POPF, longer POPF healing time, longer hospital stay, and postoperative complications than patients with high Zn concentrations. The healing time of POPF after DP was significantly negatively correlated with serum Zn concentrations. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative lower Zn concentrations and a prolonged operation time were independent predictors of CR-POPF and the healing time of POPF after DP. The POPF healing time in patients with high Zn was significantly shorter than that in patients with low Zn concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study showed the association between the preoperative Zn concentrations and the occurrence of POPF and the healing time after DP. Zn is a simple biomarker for malnutrition, which may lead to POPF after DP.

Efficacy of pancreaticojejunostomy of the pancreatic stump during distal or central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: A stapler is usually used for transection and closure of the pancreas in distal pancreatectomy (DP) or central pancreatectomy (CP). When the pancreas is transected to the right of the portal vein, it is difficult to use a stapler and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) frequently occurs. We report on the efficacy of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) of the pancreatic stump for patients in whom stapler use is difficult. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP or CP were enrolled in this study. The pancreas was usually transected by a stapler, and ultrasonic coagulating shears (UCS) were used depending on the tumor situation. When using UCS, hand-sewn closure or PJ was performed for the pancreatic stump. The relationship between clinicopathological factors and the methods of pancreatic transection and closure were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 164 patients underwent DP or CP, and the pancreas was transected with a stapler in 150 patients and UCS in 14 patients. The rate of CR-POPF was higher and the postoperative hospital stay was longer in the UCS group than in the stapler group. PJ of the pancreatic stump, which was performed for 7 patients, did not worsen intraoperative factors. CR-POPF was not seen in these 7 patients, which was significantly less than that with hand-sewn closure. CONCLUSIONS: PJ of the pancreatic stump during DP or CP reduces CR-POPF compared with hand-sewn closure and may be useful especially when the pancreas is transected to the right of the portal vein.

Central versus distal pancreatectomy for low-grade and benign pancreatic neck-body tumours.

PURPOSE: Central pancreatectomy (CP) offers parenchymal preservation compared to conventional distal pancreato-splenectomy for pancreatic neck and body tumours. However, it is associated with more morbidity. This study is aimed at evaluating the peri-operative and long-term functional outcomes, comparing central and distal pancreatectomies (DPs). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing pancreatic resections for low-grade malignant or benign tumours in pancreatic neck and body was performed (from January 2007 to December 2022). Preoperative imaging was reviewed for all cases, and only patients with uninvolved pancreatic tail, whereby a CP was feasible, were included. Peri-operative outcomes and long-term functional outcomes were compared between CP and DP. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two (5.2%) patients, amongst the total of 2304 pancreatic resections, underwent central or distal pancreatectomy for low-grade malignant or benign tumours. CP was feasible in 55 cases, of which 23 (42%) actually underwent CP and the remaining 32 (58%) underwent DP. CP group had a significantly longer operative time [370 min (IQR 300-480) versus 300 min (IQR 240-360); p = 0.002]; however, the major morbidity (43.5% versus 37.5%; p = 0.655) and median hospital stay (10 versus 11 days; p = 0.312) were comparable. The long-term endocrine functional outcome was favourable for the CP group [endocrine insufficiency rate was 13.6% in central versus 42.8% in distal (p = 0.046)]. CONCLUSION: Central pancreatectomy offers better long-term endocrine function without any increased morbidity in low malignant potential or benign pancreatic tumours of neck and body region.

Prolonged pre-firing pancreatic compression with linear staplers in distal pancreatectomy: a valuable technique for post-operative pancreatic fistula prevention.

PURPOSE: Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the main complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefit of different durations of progressive stapler closure on POPF rate and severity after DP. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP between 2016 and 2023 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into two groups according to the duration of the stapler closure: those who underwent a progressive compression for < 10 min and those for ≥ 10 min. RESULTS: Among 155 DPs, 83 (53.5%) patients underwent pre-firing compression for < 10 min and 72 (46.5%) for ≥ 10 min. As a whole, 101 (65.1%) developed POPF. A lower incidence rate was found in case of ≥ 10 min compression (34-47.2%) compared to < 10 min compression (67- 80.7%) (p = 0.001). When only clinically relevant (CR) POPFs were considered, a prolonged pre-firing compression led to a lower rate (15-20.8%) than the < 10 min cohort (32-38.6%; p = 0.02). At the multivariate analysis, a compression time of at least 10 min was confirmed as a protective factor for both POPF (OR: 5.47, 95% CI: 2.16-13.87; p = 0.04) and CR-POPF (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.19-5.45; p = 0.04) development. In case of a thick pancreatic gland, a prolonged pancreatic compression for at least 10 min was significantly associated to a lower rate of CR-POPF compared to < 10 min (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A prolonged pre-firing pancreatic compression for at least 10 min seems to significantly reduce the risk of CR-POPF development. Moreover, significant advantages are documented in case of a thick pancreatic gland.

Scope transition and early arterial inflow control provide safe and comfortable dissection in robotic distal pancreatectomy.

PURPOSE: We describe details and outcomes of a novel technique for optimizing the surgical field during robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for distal pancreatic lesions, which has become common with potential advantages over laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: For suprapancreatic lymph node dissection and splenic artery ligation, we used the basic center position with a scope through the midline port. During manipulation of the perisplenic area, the left position was used by moving the scope to the left medial side. The left lateral position is optionally used by moving the scope to the left lateral port when scope access to the perisplenic area is difficult. In addition, early splenic artery clipping and short gastric artery dissection for inflow block were performed to minimize bleeding around the spleen. We evaluated retrospectively the surgical outcomes of our method using a scoring system that allocated one point for blood inflow control and one point for optimizing the surgical view in the left position. RESULTS: We analyzed 34 patients who underwent RDP or R-radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS). The left position was applied in 14 patients, and the left lateral position was applied in 6. Based on the scoring system, only the 0-point group (n = 8) had four bleeding cases (50%) with splenic injury or blood pooling; the other 1-point or 2-point groups (n = 13, respectively) had no bleeding cases (p = 0.0046). CONCLUSION: Optimization of the surgical field using scope transition and inflow control ensured safe dissection during RDP.

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas - technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival. RESULTS: The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Defining distal splenopancreatectomy by the mesopancreas.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of the pathologic CRM (circumferential resection margin) staging system for pancreatic head ductal adenocarcinomas (hPDAC) resulted in a dramatic increase of R1 resections at the dorsal resection margin, presumably because of the high rate of mesopancreatic fat (MP) infiltration. Therefore, mesopancreatic excision (MPE) during pancreatoduodenectomy has recently been promoted and has demonstrated better local disease control, fueling the discussion of neoadjuvant downsizing regimes in MP + patients. However, it is unknown to what extent the MP is infiltrated in patients with distal pancreatic (tail/body) carcinomas (dPDAC). It is also unknown if the MP infiltration status affects surgical margin control in distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of our study was to histopathologically analyze MP infiltration and elucidate the influence of resection margin clearance on recurrence and survival in patients with dPDAC. Furthermore, the results were compared to a collective receiving MPE for hPDAC. METHOD: Clinicopathological and survival parameters of 295 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for PDAC (n = 63 dPDAC and n = 232 hPDAC) were evaluated. The CRM evaluation was performed in a standardized fashion and the specimens were examined according to the Leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP). The MP area was histopathologically evaluated for cancerous infiltration. RESULTS: In 75.4% of dPDAC patients the MP fat was infiltrated by vital tumor cells. The rates of MP infiltration and R0CRM- resections were similar between dPDAC and hPDAC patients (p = 0.497 and 0.453 respectively). MP- infiltration status did not correlate with CRM implemented resection status in dPDAC patients (p = 0.348). In overall survival analysis, resection status and MP status remained prognostic factors for survival. In follow up analysis. surgical margin clearance in dPDAC patients was associated with a significant improvement in local recurrence rates (5.2% in R0CRM- resected vs. 33.3 in R1/R0CRM + resected, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: While resection margin status was not affected by the MP status in dPDAC patients, the high MP infiltration rate, as well as improved survival in MP- dPDAC patients after R0CRM- resection, justify mesopancreatic excision during splenopancreatectomy. Larger scale studies are urgently needed to validate our results and to study the effect on neoadjuvant treatment in dPDAC patients.

What is the optimal surgical approach for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic neck? - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor's relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors. METHODS: Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63-1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08-1.89) compared to PD. CONCLUSION: While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP.

Endoscopic main duct stenting in refractory postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy - a friend or a foe?

BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common. Endoscopic treatment (ET) has only scarcely been explored. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for CR POPF after DP and the efficacy of ET in adjunct to standard therapy. METHODS: Consecutive patients without previous pancreatic surgery who underwent DP between 2011 and 2020 were evaluated, analyzing risk factors for CR POPF. The choice and performance of ET, main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenting, was not standardized. Healing time and complications after ET were registered. RESULTS: 406 patients underwent DP, CR POPF occurred in 29.6%. ET was performed in 17 patients 27 days (median) after index surgery. Risk for CR POPF was increased in ASA-PS 1-2 patients, MPD ≤ 3 mm, procedure time ≥ 3 h, and CRP ≥ 180 on postoperative day 3. POPF resolved with standard treatment after 32 days and 59 days in the ET group (p < 0.001). There was one mortality in the ET-group (not procedure related). Mild post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: CR POPF is common after DP. Long operating time, a narrow MPD, low ASA score, and high postoperative CRP were risk factors for CR POPF. ET was not beneficial but proper evaluation was not possible due to few patients and non-standardized treatment. Complications after ET appeared mild.

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.