Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to improve the tangential resection margin rates and N1 node clearance following resection of malignancies of the pancreatic body and tail. Owing to its technical complexity, minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS) has only been reported by a few centers worldwide. We performed this meta-analysis to compare both short- and long-term outcomes between open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) and minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS). METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed to identify eligible studies published in the English language regardless of study design. The outcomes of interest were operation time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, overall complications, Grade B/C post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), R0 resection rates, lymph node (LN) yield and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Five non-randomized studies comprising of a total 229 patients (89 MI-RAMPS, 140 O-RAMPS) were included for analysis. Intra-operative blood loss was observed to be significantly reduced in MI-RAMPS as compared to O-RAMPS (MD -256.16, P < 0.001), while LN yield was higher in O-RAMPS as compared to MI-RAMPS (MD -2.73, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the other perioperative, oncologic and survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides early evidence to suggest that MI-RAMPS may produce comparable short- and long-term outcomes to O-RAMPS, when undertaken by appropriately skilled surgeons in well-selected patients. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to corroborate these findings.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.