Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Enucleation, either laparoscopic or robot-assisted, is rarely performed. The aim of this study was to offer the current available evidence about the outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic enucleations and explore the possible advantage of this approach over traditional surgery. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library and Embase (ELSEVIER) medical databases were searched for articles published from January 1990 to March 2022. Studies which included more than 10 cases of minimally-invasive pancreatic enucleation were included. Data on the outcomes were synthetized and meta-analyzed when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies published between 2009 and 2022 with a total of 552 patients were included in the systematic review: three hundred fifty-one patients (63.5%) had a laparoscopic intervention, two hundred and one (36.5%) robot-assisted with a cumulative incidence of conversion rate of 5%. Minimally-invasive surgery was performed in 63% of cases on the body/tail of the Pancreas and in 37% of the cases on the head/uncinate process of the Pancreas. The cumulative post-operative 30 days - mortality rate was 0.2% and the major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV-V) 35%. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was observed in 17% of the patients. Compared with the standardized open approach (n: 366 patients), mean length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatic enucleation (2.45 days, p = 0.003) with a favorable trend for post-operative major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) (- 24% RR, p: 0.13). Operative time, blood loss and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate were comparable between the two groups. One hundred and fourteen robot-assisted enucleations entered in a subgroup analysis with comparable results to open surgery. CONCLUSION: Minimally-Invasive approach for pancreatic enucleation is safe, feasible and offers short-term clinical outcomes comparable with open surgery. The potential benefit of robotic surgery will need to be verified in further studies.

Intracorporeal or Extracorporeal Ileocolic Anastomosis After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: A Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA). BACKGROUND: IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other. METHODS: This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105-195] vs 130 (IQR 110-180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3-5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5-7) vs 6 (IQR 5-8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.