Impact of pancreas transection site on incidence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is performed for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. The morbidity profile is considerable, mainly due to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). This study aims to investigate potential differences in CR-POPF related to transection site. METHODS: An observational cohort study from a prospectively maintained database was performed. Subtotal distal pancreatectomy (SDP) was defined as transection over the superior mesenteric vein, and DP was defined as transection lateral to this point. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 fashion was applied based on demographical and perioperative variables. RESULTS: Six hundred and six patients were included in the analysis (1997-2020). Four hundred twenty (69.3%) underwent DP, while 186 (30.7%) underwent SDP. The rate of CR-POPF was 19.3% after DP and 20.4% after SDP (p = 0.74). SDP was associated with older age (63.1 vs 60.1 years, p = 0.016), higher occurrence of ductal adenocarcinoma (37.1 vs 17.6%, p = 0.001) and more frequent use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3.8 vs 0.7%, p = 0.012). After PSM, 155 patients were left in each group. The difference in CR-POPF between DP and SDP remained statistically non-significant (20.6 vs 18.7%, p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in CR-POPF related to transection site during distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection for large (≥ 50 mm) colorectal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients with large liver tumors (≥ 50 mm) have been considered for anatomic major hepatectomy. Laparoscopic resection of large liver lesions is technically challenging and often performed by surgeons with extensive experience. The current study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic safety of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection in patients with large colorectal metastases. METHODS: Patients who primarily underwent laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (less than 3 consecutive liver segments) for colorectal liver metastases between 1999 and 2019 at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. In some recent cases, a computer-assisted surgical planning system was used to better visualize and understand the patients' liver anatomy, as well as a tool to further improve the resection strategy. The surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with large (≥ 50 mm) and small (< 50 mm) tumors were compared. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for survival. RESULTS: In total 587 patients met the inclusion criteria (large tumor group, n = 59; and small tumor group, n = 528). Median tumor size was 60 mm (range, 50-110) in the large tumor group and 21 mm (3-48) in the small tumor group (p < 0.001). Patient age and CEA level were higher in the large tumor group (8.4 µg/L vs. 4.6 µg/L, p < 0.001). Operation time and conversion rate were similar, while median blood loss was higher in the large tumor group (500 ml vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001). Patients in the large tumor group had shorter 5 year overall survival (34% vs 49%, p = 0.027). However, in the multivariable Cox-regression analysis tumor size did not impact survival, unlike parameters such as age, ASA score, CEA level, extrahepatic disease at liver surgery, and positive lymph nodes in the primary tumor. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resections for large colorectal liver metastases provide satisfactory short and long-term outcomes.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004-2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015-2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance. RESULTS: Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear. METHODS: The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined. RESULTS: Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time. CONCLUSIONS: In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery, no high-level evidence supports the oncologic safety of this approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with colorectal metastases. DESIGN: A single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial (OSLO-COMET [Oslo Randomized Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases Trial]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01516710). SETTING: Oslo University Hospital, the only provider of liver surgery for the 3 million inhabitants of southeastern Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomly assigned to have open or laparoscopic liver resection. INTERVENTION: From February 2012 to January 2016, a total of 280 patients were included in the trial (laparoscopic surgery: n = 133; open surgery: n = 147). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 30 days. Five-year rates of overall and recurrence-free survival were predefined secondary end points. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 70 months, rates of 5-year overall survival were 54% in the laparoscopic group and 55% in the open group (between-group difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -11.3 to 12.3 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 0.93 [CI, 0.67 to 1.30]; P = 0.67). Rates of 5-year recurrence-free survival were 30% in the laparoscopic group and 36% in the open group (between-group difference, 6.0 percentage points [CI, -6.7 to 18.7 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.80 to 1.49]; P = 0.57). LIMITATION: The trial was not powered to detect differences in secondary end points and was not designed to address a noninferiority hypothesis for survival outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial of laparoscopic and open liver surgery, no difference in survival outcomes was found between the treatment groups. However, differences in 5-year overall survival up to about 10 percentage points in either direction cannot be excluded. This trial should be followed by pragmatic multicenter trials and international registries. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

ALPPS Improves Survival Compared With TSH in Patients Affected of CRLM: Survival Analysis From the Randomized Controlled Trial LIGRO.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncological outcome for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) randomized to associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) or 2-stage hepatectomy (TSH). BACKGROUND: TSH with portal vein occlusion is an established method for patients with CRLM and a low volume of the future liver remnant (FLR). ALPPS is a less established method. The oncological outcome of these methods has not been previously compared in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: One hundred patients with CRLM and standardized FLR (sFLR) <30% were included and randomized to resection by ALPPS or TSH, with the option of rescue ALPPS in the TSH group, if the criteria for volume increase was not met. The first radiological follow-up was performed approximately 4 weeks postoperatively and then after 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months. At all the follow-ups, the remaining/recurrent tumor was noted. After the first follow-up, chemotherapy was administered, if indicated. RESULTS: The resection rate, according to the intention-to-treat principle, was 92% (44 patients) for patients randomized to ALPPS compared with 80% (39 patients) for patients randomized to TSH (P = 0.091), including rescue ALPPS. At the first postoperative follow-up, 37 patients randomized to ALPPS were assessed as tumor free in the liver, and also 28 patients randomized to TSH (P = 0.028). The estimated median survival for patients randomized to ALPPS was 46 months compared with 26 months for patients randomized to TSH (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: ALPPS seems to improve survival in patients with CRLM and sFLR <30% compared with TSH.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with poor physical status.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous over open surgery in the treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and low-grade malignancies. Yet the evidence on the relationship between comorbidities and the outcomes of LDP remains scarce. METHODS: Patients who had undergone LDP for all indications between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Preoperative physical status was defined according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) criteria. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients with high (ASA III-IV) and low/moderate anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). RESULTS: A total of 605 patients were eligible for analysis including 190 with ASA III-IV and 415 with ASA I-II. The former was associated with older age, male gender, preexisting medical conditions, greater total number of comorbidities and red blood cell transfusion. The rate of medical complications was significantly higher in high-risk patients. Multivariable analysis identified ASA III-IV and operative time as independent predictors for medical complications. Overall/severe morbidity, surgical complications and mortality rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Poor physical status defined as ASA grades III-IV predicts medical complications, but has a limited impact on surgical complications and severe morbidity of LDP. Thus, it should not be considered as a contraindication for LDP.

Laparoscopic liver resection for non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine metastases: perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection is a treatment of choice for colorectal and neuroendocrine liver metastases, and laparoscopy is an accepted approach for surgical treatment of these patients. The role of liver resection for patients with non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases (NCNNLM), however, is still disputable. Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for this group of patients have not been analyzed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection for NCNNLM at Oslo University Hospital between April 2000 and January 2018 were analyzed. Perioperative and oncologic data of these patients were examined. Postoperative morbidity was classified using the Accordion classification. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Median follow-up was 26 (IQR, 12-41) months. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were identified from a prospectively collected database. The histology of primary tumors was classified as adenocarcinoma (n = 16), sarcoma (n = 4), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4), melanoma (n = 16), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 9), and adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 2). The median operative time was 147 (IQR, 95-225) min, while the median blood loss was 200 (IQR, 50-500) ml. Nine (18%) patients experienced postoperative complications. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. Thirty-five (68%) patients developed disease recurrence or progression. Seven (14%) patients underwent repeat surgical procedure for recurrent liver metastases. One-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates were 85%, 52%, and 38%, respectively. The median overall survival was 37 (95%CI, 25 to 49) months. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection for NCNNLM results in good outcomes and should be considered in patients selected for surgical treatment.

ALPPS Improves Resectability Compared With Conventional Two-stage Hepatectomy in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Results From a Scandinavian Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (LIGRO Trial).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate if associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) could increase resection rates (RRs) compared with two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). BACKGROUND: Radical liver metastasis resection offers the only chance of a cure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and an insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) volume are traditionally treated with chemotherapy with portal vein embolization or ligation followed by hepatectomy (TSH). This treatment sometimes fails due to insufficient liver growth or tumor progression. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter RCT was conducted between June 2014 and August 2016. It included 97 patients with CRLM and a standardized FLR (sFLR) of less than 30%. Primary outcome-RRs were measured as the percentages of patients completing both stages of the treatment. Secondary outcomes were complications, radicality, and 90-day mortality measured from the final intervention. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, besides body mass index, did not differ between the groups. The RR was 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 84%-100%] (44/48) in the ALPPS arm compared with 57% (95% CI 43%-72%) (28/49) in the TSH arm [rate ratio 8.25 (95% CI 2.6-26.6); P < 0.0001]. No differences in complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) [43% (19/44) vs 43% (12/28)] [1.01 (95% CI 0.4-2.6); P = 0.99], 90-day mortality [8.3% (4/48) vs 6.1% (3/49)] [1.39 [95% CI 0.3-6.6]; P = 0.68] or R0 RRs [77% (34/44) vs 57% (16/28)] [2.55 [95% CI 0.9-7.1]; P = 0.11)] were observed. Of the patients in the TSH arm that failed to reach an sFLR of 30%, 12 were successfully treated with ALPPS. CONCLUSION: ALPPS is superior to TSH in terms of RR, with comparable surgical margins, complications, and short-term mortality.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The OSLO-COMET Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking. METHODS: Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67-21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Stage IV metastatic melanoma carries a poor prognosis. In the case of melanoma liver metastasis (MLM), surgical resection may improve survival and represents a therapeutic option, with varying levels of success. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic melanoma is poorly studied. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of LLR in patients with MLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2000 and August 2013, 11 (1 cutaneous, 9 ocular and 1 unknown primary) patients underwent LLR for MLM at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet and 13 procedures in total were carried out. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Postoperative morbidity was classified using the Accordion classification. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 23 liver specimens were resected. The median operative time was 137 (65-470) min, while the median blood loss was less than 50 (<50-900) ml. No intraoperative unfavorable incidents and 30-day mortality occurred. Median follow-up was 33 (9-92) months. Ten patients (91%) developed recurrence within a median of 5 months (2-18 months) and two patients underwent repeat LLR for recurrent liver metastases. One-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates were 82, 45 and 9%, respectively. The median overall survival was 30 (9-92) months. CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity and long-term survival after LLR for MLM seems to be comparable to open liver resection. Thus, LLR may be preferred over open liver resection due to the well-known advantages of laparoscopy, such as reduced pain and improved possibility for repeated resections.

Can standardized pathology examination increase the lymph node yield following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND: Lymph node yield (LNY) is an indicator of oncological adequacy of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Our hypothesis is that standardized pathology examination (SPE) aimed at accurate staging can increase the LNY without changing surgical technique. METHODS: After the introduction of SPE for distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens at Oslo University Hospital, prospective data were collected on patients with PDAC undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDP). Their data were compared with retrospective data from specimens examined in a non-standardized way (NSPE). RESULTS: SPE and NSPE were applied to 20 and 33 specimens, respectively. SPE was associated with a higher LNY and a higher median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) in the specimen (18 vs 7, P = 0.001 and 4 vs 1, P = 0.005, respectively). In the stepwise regression model, SPE and younger age resulted in an increased LNY. In the logistic regression model, increased LNY and larger tumor size positively correlated with the presence of PLN. CONCLUSION: SPE of distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens is associated with higher LNY in patients with PDAC, which increases the likelihood of detecting PLN and reduces the risk of understaging. These findings also indicate that the LDP technique provides an adequate LNY in patients with PDAC.

Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is increasingly performed in specialized centers. While there is a trend towards a parenchyma-sparing strategy in multimodal treatment for CLM, its role is yet unclear. In this study we present short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (LPSLR) at a single center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LLR were performed in 951 procedures between August 1998 and March 2017 at Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Patients who primarily underwent LPSLR for CLM were included in the study. LPSLR was defined as non-anatomic hence the patients who underwent hemihepatectomy and sectionectomy were excluded. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. The Accordion classification was used to grade postoperative complications. The median follow-up was 40 months. RESULTS: 296 patients underwent primary LPSLR for CLM. A single specimen was resected in 204 cases, multiple resections were performed in 92 cases. 5 laparoscopic operations were converted to open. The median operative time was 134 minutes, blood loss was 200 ml and hospital stay was 3 days. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. The postoperative complication rate was 14.5%. 189 patients developed disease recurrence. Recurrence in the liver occurred in 146 patients (49%), of whom 85 patients underwent repeated surgical treatment (liver resection [n = 69], ablation [n = 14] and liver transplantation [n = 2]). Five-year overall survival was 48%, median overall survival was 56 months. CONCLUSIONS: LPSLR of CLM can be performed safely with the good surgical and oncological results. The technique facilitates repeated surgical treatment, which may improve survival for patients with CLM.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure. METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP. RESULTS: Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group. DISCUSSION: Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. METHODS: After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. RESULTS: A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR).

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.