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.

Outcome of Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients with Intestinal- and Pancreatobiliary Subtype Ampullary Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy in different subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) is widely seen as the best indication for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) due to the lack of vascular involvement and dilated bile and pancreatic duct. However, it is unknown whether outcomes of MIPD for AAC differ between the pancreatobiliary (AAC-PB) and intestinal (AAC-IT) subtypes as large studies are lacking. METHODS: This is an international cohort study, encompassing 27 centers from 12 countries. Outcome of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were compared in patients with AAC-IT and AAC-PB. Primary end points were R1 rate, lymph node yield, and 5-year overall survival (5yOS). RESULTS: Overall, 1187 patients after MIPD for AAC were included, of whom 572 with AAC-IT (62 MIPD, 510 OPD) and 615 with AAC-PB (41 MIPD and 574 OPD). The rate of R1 resection was not significantly different between MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (3.4% vs 6.9%, P=0,425) and AAC-PB (9.8% vs 14.9%, P=0,625). AAC-IT, more lymph nodes were resected with MIPD group (19 vs 16, P=0.007), compared to OPD. The 5y-OS did not differ after MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (56.8% vs 59.5%, P=0.827 and AAC-PB (52.5% vs 44.4%, P=0.357). The rates of surgical complication between MIPD and OPD did not differ between AmpIT and AmpPB. DISCUSSION: This international multicenter study found no differences in outcomes between MIPD and OPD for AAC-IT and AAC-PB. MIPD and OPD demonstrated comparable outcomes in oncological resection, survival and surgical outcomes for both subtypes of AAC.

The Five Periampullary Cancers, not Just Different Siblings but Different Families: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer arising in the periampullary region can be anatomically classified in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), and ampullary carcinoma. Based on histopathology, ampullary carcinoma is currently subdivided in intestinal (AmpIT), pancreatobiliary (AmpPB), and mixed subtypes. Despite close anatomical resemblance, it is unclear how ampullary subtypes relate to the remaining periampullary cancers in tumor characteristics and behavior. METHODS: This international cohort study included patients after curative intent resection for periampullary cancer retrieved from 44 centers (from Europe, United States, Asia, Australia, and Canada) between 2010 and 2021. Preoperative CA19-9, pathology outcomes and 8-year overall survival were compared between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, dCCA, and PDAC. RESULTS: Overall, 3809 patients were analyzed, including 348 DAC, 774 AmpIT, 848 AmpPB, 1,036 dCCA, and 803 PDAC. The highest 8-year overall survival was found in patients with AmpIT and DAC (49.8% and 47.9%), followed by AmpPB (34.9%, P < 0.001), dCCA (26.4%, P = 0.020), and finally PDAC (12.9%, P < 0.001). A better survival was correlated with lower CA19-9 levels but not with tumor size, as DAC lesions showed the largest size. CONCLUSIONS: Despite close anatomic relations of the five periampullary cancers, this study revealed differences in preoperative blood markers, pathology, and long-term survival. More tumor characteristics are shared between DAC and AmpIT and between AmpPB and dCCA than between the two ampullary subtypes. Instead of using collective definitions for "periampullary cancers" or anatomical classification, this study emphasizes the importance of individual evaluation of each histopathological subtype with the ampullary subtypes as individual entities in future studies.

The road to tailored adjuvant chemotherapy for all four non-pancreatic periampullary cancers: An international multimethod cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite differences in tumour behaviour and characteristics between duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), the intestinal (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary (AmpPB) subtype of ampullary adenocarcinoma and distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) on these cancers, as well as the optimal ACT regimen, has not been comprehensively assessed. This study aims to assess the influence of tailored ACT on DAC, dCCA, AmpIT, and AmpPB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinoma were identified and collected from 36 tertiary centres between 2010 - 2021. Per non-pancreatic periampullary tumour type, the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy and the main relevant regimens of adjuvant chemotherapy were compared. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included a total of 2866 patients with DAC (n = 330), AmpIT (n = 765), AmpPB (n = 819), and dCCA (n = 952). Among them, 1329 received ACT, and 1537 did not. ACT was associated with significant improvement in OS for AmpPB (P = 0.004) and dCCA (P < 0.001). Moreover, for patients with dCCA, capecitabine mono ACT provided the greatest OS benefit compared to gemcitabine (P = 0.004) and gemcitabine - cisplatin (P = 0.001). For patients with AmpPB, no superior ACT regime was found (P > 0.226). ACT was not associated with improved OS for DAC and AmpIT (P = 0.113 and P = 0.445, respectively). DISCUSSION: Patients with resected AmpPB and dCCA appear to benefit from ACT. While the optimal ACT for AmpPB remains undetermined, it appears that dCCA shows the most favourable response to capecitabine monotherapy. Tailored adjuvant treatments are essential for enhancing prognosis across all four non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas.

The pan - COVID - AGICT study. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgically treated pancreatic cancer patients. A multicentric Italian study.

BACKGROUND: In this article we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study, to investigate the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancers (PC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The primary endpoint of the study was to find out any difference in the tumoral stage of surgically treated PC patients between 2019 and 2020. Surgical and oncological outcomes of the entire cohort of patients were also appraised dividing the entire peri-pandemic period into six three-month timeframes to balance out the comparison between 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 1815 patients were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 in 14 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (p = 0.846). During the pandemic, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) has dropped significantly (6.2% vs 21.4%, p < 0.001) and, for patients who didn't undergo NCT, the latency between diagnosis and surgery was shortened (49.58 ± 37 days vs 77.40 ± 83 days, p < 0.001). During 2020 there was a significant increase in minimally invasive procedures (p < 0.001). The rate of postoperative complication was the same in the two years but during 2020 there was an increase of the medical ones (19% vs 16.1%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The post-pandemic dramatic modifications in healthcare provision, in Italy, did not significantly impair the clinical history of PC patients receiving surgical resection. The present study is one of the largest reports available on the argument and may provide the basis for long-term analyses.

Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Different Periampullary Types and Subtypes Leading to Different Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: Reality and Not a Myth; An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

This international multicenter cohort study included 30 centers. Patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), intestinal-type (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary-type (AmpPB) ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b≥), clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 3622 patients were included in the study (370 DAC, 811 AmpIT, 895 AmpPB, 1083 dCCA, and 463 PDAC). Mortality rates were comparable between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, and dCCA (ranging from 3.7% to 5.9%), while lower for PDAC (1.5%, p = 0.013). Major morbidity rate was the lowest in PDAC (4.4%) and the highest for DAC (19.9%, p < 0.001). The highest rates of CR-POPF were observed in DAC (27.3%), AmpIT (25.5%), and dCCA (27.6%), which were significantly higher compared to AmpPB (18.5%, p = 0.001) and PDAC (8.3%, p < 0.001). The shortest LOS was found in PDAC (11 d vs. 14-15 d, p < 0.001). Discussion: In conclusion, this study shows significant variations in perioperative mortality, post-operative complications, and hospital stay among different periampullary cancers, and between the ampullary subtypes. Further research should assess the biological characteristics and tissue reactions associated with each type of periampullary cancer, including subtypes, in order to improve patient management and personalized treatment.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Pancreatojejunostomy: standing on the shoulders of giants. A single centre retrospective analysis.

Gaining experience in pancreatic surgery could be demanding especially when minimally invasive approach is used. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) is one of the most critical steps during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Our aim was to investigate the impact of a surgeon's experience in performing PJ, especially in a subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic PD (LPD). Data of consecutive patients undergoing PD from 2017 to 2022 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: M group included patients in which PJ was performed by an experienced surgeon, D group included those receiving PJ by a less experienced one. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes. 187 patients were selected (157 in group M and 30 in group D). The cohorts differed in terms of median age (68 vs 74 years, p = 0.016), and previous abdominal surgery (41.4% vs 66.7%, p = 0.011), while no difference was found regarding risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The groups did not differ in terms of surgical outcomes. POPF rate was 15.9% and 10% in the M and D group (p = 0.578), respectively. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic PJ POPF rate was 16.0% and 17.7% in the M and D group (p = 0.867), respectively, without difference. No difference was found in terms of POPF in patients undergoing PD independently from the surgeon who performed the PJ, even during LPD. Moderate/high FRS, BMI > 30 kg/m2 and male sex, but not the surgeon who performed the PJ anastomosis, were independent predictors of POPF.

Learning curve of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation (RA-CUSUM) analysis of six general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LapC) is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. Reaching technical competency in performing LapC is considered one essential task for young surgeons. Investigating the learning curve for LapC (LC-LapC) may provide important information regarding the learning process and guide the training pathway of residents, improving educational outcomes. The present study aimed to investigate LC-LapC among general surgery residents (GSRs). METHODS: Operative surgical reports of consecutive patients undergoing LapC performed by GSRs attending the General Surgery Residency Program at the University of Milan were analysed. Data on patient- and surgery-related variables were obtained from the ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and gathered. A multidimensional assessment of the LC was performed through Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) and Risk-Adjusted (RA)-CUSUM analysis. RESULTS: 340 patients operated by 6 GSRs were collected. The CUSUM and RA-CUSUM graphs based on surgical failures allowed to distinguish two defined phases for all GSRs: an initial phase ending at the peak, so-called learning phase, followed by a phase in which there was a significant decrease in failure incidence, so-called proficiency phase. The learning phase was completed for all GSRs at most within 25 procedures, but the trend of the curves and the number of procedures needed to achieve technical competency varied among operators ranging between 7 and 25. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggested that at most 25 procedures might be sufficient to acquire technical competency in LapC. The variability in the number of procedures needed to complete the LC, ranging between 7 and 25, could be due to the heterogeneous scenarios in which LapC was performed, and deserves to be investigated through a prospective study involving a larger number of GSRs and institutions.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC). METHODS: A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection for treatment of pancreatic insulinoma.

BACKGROUND: Insulinoma is the most common functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and treatment is required to address symptoms associated with insulin hypersecretion. Surgical resection is effective but burdened by high rate of adverse events (AEs). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) demonstrated encouraging results in terms of safety and efficacy for the management of these tumors. However, studies comparing surgery and EUS-RFA are lacking. AIMS: The primary aim is to compare EUS-RFA with surgery in term of safety (overall rate of AEs). Secondary endpoints include: (a) severe AEs rate; (b) clinical effectiveness; (c) patient's quality of life; (d) length of hospital stay; (e) rate of local/distance recurrence; (f) need of reintervention; (g) rate of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency; (h) factors associated with EUS-RFA related AEs and clinical effectiveness. METHODS: ERASIN-RCT is an international randomized superiority ongoing trial in four countries. Sixty patients will be randomized in two arms (EUS-RFA vs surgery) and outcomes compared. Two EUS-RFA sessions will be allowed to achieve symptoms resolution. Randomization and data collection will be performed online. DISCUSSION: This study will ascertain if EUS-RFA can become the first-line therapy for management of small, sporadic, pancreatic insulinoma and be included in a step-up approach in case of clinical failure.

Should Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Be Offered to Elderly Patients to Treat Right-Sided Colon Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Despite its potential oncologic benefit, complete mesocolic excision (CME) has rarely been offered to elderly patients. The present study evaluated the effect of age on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomies with CME for right-sided colon cancer (RCC). METHODS: Data of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomies with CME for RCC between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Selected patients were divided into two groups: the under-80 group and the over-80 group. Surgical, pathological, and oncological outcomes among the groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were selected (95 in the under-80 group and 35 in the over-80 group). No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative outcomes, except for median length of stay and adjuvant chemotherapy received, which were in favor of the under-80 group (5 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001 and 26.3% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.003, respectively). No difference between the groups was found regarding overall survival and disease free survival. Using multivariate analysis, only the ASA score > 2 (p = 0.01) was an independent predictor of overall complications. CONCLUSIONS: laparoscopic right colectomy with CME for RCC was safely performed in elderly patients ensuring similar oncological outcomes compared to younger patients.

Multidimensional evaluation of the learning curve for totally laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a challenging procedure. We investigated the learning curve (LC) for LPD with a multidimensional analysis. METHODS: Data of patients undergoing LPD between 2017 and 2021, operated by a single surgeon, were considered. A multidimensional assessment of the LC was performed through Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) and Risk-Adjusted (RA)-CUSUM analysis. RESULTS: 113 patients were selected. Rates of conversion, overall postoperative complication, severe complication and mortality were 4%, 53%, 29% and 4%, respectively. RA-CUSUM analysis showed a LC with three phases: competency (procedures 1-51), proficiency (procedures 52-94), and mastery (after procedure 94). Operative time was lower in both phase two (588.17 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.001) and three (534.72 vs 541.13 min, p = 0.004) with respect to phase one. Severe complication rate was lower in mastery as compared to competency phase (42% vs 6%, p = 0.005). During mastery phase a greater number of lymph nodes was harvested in comparison to proficiency phase. CONCLUSIONS: According to our LC analysis, 52 procedures were required to achieve technical competency in LPD. Mastery, which corresponded to a reduction in operative time and surgical failures, was acquired after 94 procedures.

Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An International Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). BACKGROUND: A dCCA might be a good indication for MIPD, as it is often diagnosed as primary resectable disease. However, multicenter series on MIPD for dCCA are lacking. METHODS: This is an international multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study including patients after MIPD or OPD for dCCA in 8 centers from 5 countries (2010-2021). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free interval (DFI). Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative complications and predictors for OS or DFI. Subgroup analyses included robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). RESULTS: Overall, 478 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were included of which 97 after MIPD (37 RPD, 60 LPD) and 381 after OPD. MIPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs 420 mL, P =0.025), longer operation time (453 vs 340 min; P <0.001), and less surgical site infections (7.8% vs 19.3%; P =0.042) compared with OPD. The median OS (30 vs 25 mo) and DFI (29 vs 18) for MIPD did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD. Tumor stage (Hazard ratio: 2.939, P <0.001) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio: 0.640, P =0.033) were individual predictors for OS. RPD was associated with a higher lymph node yield (18.0 vs 13.5; P =0.008) and less major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b-5; 8.1% vs 32.1%; P =0.005) compared with LPD. DISCUSSION: Both surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD for dCCA are acceptable as compared with OPD. Surgical outcomes seem to favor RPD as compared with LPD but more data are needed. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. CONCLUSION: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity.

Standardized right artery first approach during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: technical aspects and perioperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The most debated aspects of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) concern the dissection of the pancreas from the surrounding vessels and the achievement of adequate resection margins, especially in patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients undergoing LPD with right artery first approach from September 2020 to September 2021 for periampullary neoplasms (pancreatic, ampullary, duodenal, distal common biliary duct) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The overall cohort was divided into two groups: patients affected by pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and patients affected by other periampullary neoplasms (OP). Surgical and postoperative outcomes between PC and OP were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (15 PC and 16 OP) were selected. No difference was found between PC and OP in terms of baseline characteristics. Median resection time and overall surgical time of the entire cohort were 275 min and 530 min, respectively, without difference between the groups (p = 0.599 and 0.052, respectively). Blood loss was similar between the groups, being 350 ml in PC and 325 ml in OP (p = 0.762). One patient (3.2%) was converted to laparotomy. No difference was found between the groups in terms of pathological outcomes. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 17. The majority of the patients (83.9%) received an R0 resection (73.3% and 93.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.172). Postoperative surgical outcomes did not differ between the groups, excepting for overall complication rate that was higher in the OP group (26.7% vs 68.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Standardized right artery first approach during LPD was feasible and did not show worse surgical and postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer as compared to those affected by other periampullary neoplasms, except for a higher rate of minor complications.

Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. RESULTS: Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. CONCLUSION: Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.

Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS). METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk. RESULTS: A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87). CONCLUSION: The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.