Significance of Specimen Extraction Site in Minimizing Hernia Risk After Distal Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) results in significant morbidity to patients and financial burden to healthcare systems. We aimed to determine the incidence of IH in distal pancreatectomy (DP) patients, stratified by specimen extraction sites. METHOD: Imaging in DP patients in our institution from 2016 to 2021 were reviewed by radiologists blinded to the operative approach. Specimen extraction sites were stratified as upper midline/umbilical (UM) versus Pfannenstiel. IH was defined as fascial defect on postoperative imaging. Patients without preoperative and postoperative imaging were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 219 patients who met our selection criteria, the median age was 64 years, 54% were female, and 64% were White. The majority were minimally invasive (MIS) procedures (n = 131, 60%), of which 52% (n = 64) had a UM incision for specimen extraction, including 45 hand-assist and 19 purely laparoscopic procedures. MIS with Pfannenstiel incisions for specimen extraction was 48% (n = 58), including 44 robotic and 14 purely laparoscopic procedures. Mean follow-up time was 16.3 months (standard deviation [SD] 20.8). Follow-up for MIS procedures with UM incisions was 16.6 months (SD 21.8) versus 15.5 months (SD 18.6) in the Pfannenstiel group (p = 0.30). MIS procedures with UM incisions for specimen extraction had a 17.8 times increase in odds of developing an IH compared with MIS procedures with Pfannenstiel extraction sites (p = 0.01). The overall odds of developing an IH increased by 4% for every month of follow-up (odds ratio 1.04; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A Pfannenstiel incision should be performed for specimen extraction in cases with purely laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy, when feasible.

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

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.

Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?

BACKGROUNDS: The use of drains in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The present study investigated postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without intraperitoneal drain placement. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided in drain group (DG), including patients with prophylactic abdominal drain placed, and no-drain group (NDG) including those without drain. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes, using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: 116 patients were selected. After matching, DG and NDG consisted of 29 patients each. The rates of POPF and abdominal collection were lower in NDG in comparison to DG (3.4% vs. 27.6%, p 0.025 and 3.4% vs. 31.0%, p 0.011, respectively). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the NDG (5 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001). No difference between the groups was found for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Drain omission was associated with lower rates of POPF and abdominal collections, as well as shorter hospital stays, not affecting the rate of severe complication, reoperation and readmission.

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.

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.

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.

An evidence-based model for predicting conversion to open surgery in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP. METHODS: A total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves. RESULTS: Following an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values. CONCLUSION: The evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

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.

Risk factor analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy with a focus on the peritoneum to portal vein distance on computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major complication of distal pancreatectomy (DP). Although the visceral fat area (VFA) is a risk factor for POPF in DP, its measurement is complicated. This study aimed to identify a simple marker as a predictive indicator of POPF. METHODS: We included 210 patients who underwent resection at our institution between 2020 and 2023. The patients' characteristics, preoperative laboratory data, and radiographic findings (e.g., portal vein distance and VFA) and their association with pancreatic fistula after DP were analyzed. POPF was defined as Grade B or C pancreatic fistula on the basis of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 2016 consensus. RESULTS: POPF developed in 82 (39.0%) patients. Univariate analysis showed that female sex, pancreatic thickness of the cutting line, operative time, blood loss, C-reactive protein (CRP) level on postoperative day (POD) 3, drain amylase level on POD 3, VFA, and the peritoneum to portal vein distance (PPD) were associated with POPF. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of PPD showed a higher area under the curve than VFA (cutoff for PPD: 68 mm). Multivariate analysis showed that CRP (odds ratio [OR]: 2.214), drain amylase (OR: 2.875), and PPD (OR: 15.538) were independent risk factors. When we compared the DP fistula risk score and PPD, receiver operating characteristic analysis showed areas under the curve of 0.650 and 0.803, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A PPD of ≥68 mm is a useful risk predictor of POPF. Determining this distance is simple and easily applicable in the clinical setting.

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.

Drainage and irrigation on demand may decrease severe septic complications and mortality in pancreatic resections.

PURPOSE: The necessity of routine drain placement in pancreatic resections is controversial. Some randomized controlled trials have shown that the omission of drainage is safe for some patients, whereas reintervention rates and mortality rates are substantial for others. The present study aimed to assess fistula-associated outcomes in the setting of routine drain placement and drain irrigation on demand. METHODS: Between 01/2017 and 12/2022, perioperative and outcome data from patients who underwent consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies (PD, n = 253) or distal pancreatectomies (DP, n = 72) were prospectively collected in the electronic StuDoQ database and analysed. All patients underwent intraoperative drain placement. Drains were removed starting at postoperative day 2 in PD or at day 5 in DP after testing for amylase concentration. In case of high amylase levels or macroscopically suspicious pancreatic fistulas, drain irrigation was started. Nondrained fluid collections underwent percutaneous radiologic or transluminal endoscopic evacuation. RESULTS: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were detected in 53 of 325 patients (POPF grade B 16.3%, grade C 1.2%). 43.3% of those had drain irrigation. Additional interventional or endoscopic drainage was necessary in 14 and 5 patients, respectively (overall 5.8%), and were observed in 4.0% of patients with PD and in 12.5% with DP (p = 0.009). Delayed fistula-associated postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) was present in 1.2% (4/325) of patients. The fistula- and delayed PPH-associated reoperation rate was 1.5% (5/325). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were both 1.5% (5/325), and the rate of fistula-associated mortality was 0.6% (2/325). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In pancreatectomies, a standardized drainage protocol including on-demand drain irrigation results in very low fistula-associated morbidity and mortality and an infrequent need for interventional or surgical reintervention as compared to previously published drainage studies.

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.