Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Long-term quality of life is better after laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Three randomized controlled trials have reported improved functional recovery after Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Long-term results regarding quality of life (QoL) are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term QoL of LPD versus OPD. METHODS AND PATIENTS: A monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among patients < 75 years old who underwent LPD or OPD for a benign or premalignant pathology in a high-volume center (2011-2021). An electronic three-part questionnaire was sent to eligible patients, including two diseases specific QoL questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and a pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) and a body image questionnaire. Patient demographics and postoperative data were collected and compared between LPD and OPD. RESULTS: Among 948 patients who underwent PD (137 LPD, 811 OPD), 170 were eligible and 111 responded (58 LPD and 53 OPD). LPD versus OPD showed no difference in mean age (51 vs. 55 years, p = 0.199) and female gender (40% vs. 45%, p = 0.631), but LPD showed lower BMI (24 vs 26; p = 0.028) and higher preoperative pancreatitis (29% vs 13%; p = 0.041). The postoperative outcome showed similar Clavien-Dindo ≥ III morbidity (19% vs. 23%; p = 0.343) and length of stay (24 vs. 21 days, p = 0.963). After a similar median follow-up (3 vs. 3 years; p = 0.122), LPD vs OPD patients reported higher QoL (QLQ-C30: 49.6 vs 56.3; p = 0.07), better pancreas specific health status score (PAN20: 50.5 vs 55.5; p = 0.002), physical functioning (p = 0.002), and activities limitations (p = 0.02). Scar scores were better after LPD regarding esthetics (p = 0.001), satisfaction (p = 0.04), chronic pain at rest (p = 0.036), moving (p = 0.011) or in daily activities (p = 0.02). There was no difference in digestive symptoms (p = 0.995). CONCLUSION: This monocentric study found improved long-term QoL in patients undergoing LPD, as compared to OPD, for benign and premalignant diseases. These results could be considered when choosing the surgical approach in these patients.

Short-term Outcomes After Spleen-preserving Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy With or Without Preservation of Splenic Vessels: A Pan-European Retrospective Study in High-volume Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term clinical outcomes after Kimura and Warshaw MIDP. BACKGROUND: Spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy can be achieved by either preservation (Kimura) or resection (Warshaw) of the splenic vessels. Multicenter studies reporting outcomes of Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP are scarce. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study including consecutive MIDP procedures intended to be spleen-preserving from 29 high-volume centers (≥15 distal pancreatectomies annually) in 8 European countries. Primary outcomes were secondary splenectomy for ischemia and major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) complications. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of excluding ("rescue") Warshaw procedures which were performed in centers that typically (>75%) performed Kimura MIDP. RESULTS: Overall, 1095 patients after MIDP were included with successful splenic preservation in 878 patients (80%), including 634 Kimura and 244 Warshaw procedures. Rates of clinically relevant splenic ischemia (0.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.127) and major complications (11.5% vs 14.4%, P = 0.308) did not differ significantly between Kimura and Warshaw MIDP, respectively. Mortality rates were higher after Warshaw MIDP (0.0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.023), and decreased in the sensitivity analysis (0.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.052). Kimura MIDP was associated with longer operative time (202 vs 184 minutes, P = 0.033) and less blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P < 0.001) as compared to Warshaw MIDP. Unplanned splenectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate (20.7% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP provide equivalent short-term outcomes with low rates of secondary splenectomy and postoperative morbidity. Further analyses of long-term outcomes are needed.

Development of biotissue training models for anastomotic suturing in pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic suturing is the Achilles heel of pancreatic surgery. Especially in laparoscopic and robotically assisted surgery, the pancreatic anastomosis should first be trained outside the operating room. Realistic training models are therefore needed. METHODS: Models of the pancreas, small bowel, stomach, bile duct, and a realistic training torso were developed for training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery. Pancreas models with soft and hard textures, small and large ducts were incrementally developed and evaluated. Experienced pancreatic surgeons (n = 44) evaluated haptic realism, rigidity, fragility of tissues, and realism of suturing and knot tying. RESULTS: In the iterative development process the pancreas models showed high haptic realism and highest realism in suturing (4.6 ± 0.7 and 4.9 ± 0.5 on 1-5 Likert scale, soft pancreas). The small bowel model showed highest haptic realism (4.8 ± 0.4) and optimal wall thickness (0.1 ± 0.4 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and suturing behavior (0.1 ± 0.4). The bile duct models showed optimal wall thickness (0.3 ± 0.8 and 0.4 ± 0.8 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and optimal tissue fragility (0 ± 0.9 and 0.3 ± 0.7). CONCLUSION: The biotissue training models showed high haptic realism and realistic suturing behavior. They are suitable for realistic training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery which may improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). BACKGROUND: MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding). RESULTS: Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreatic Body or Tail on Surgical and Oncological Outcome: A Propensity-Score Matched Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested a survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the pancreatic head. Data concerning NAT for PDAC located in pancreatic body or tail are lacking. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of an international multicenter retrospective cohort of distal pancreatectomy for PDAC in 34 centers from 11 countries (2007-2015). Patients who underwent resection after NAT were matched (1:1 ratio), using propensity scores based on baseline characteristics, to patients who underwent upfront resection. Median overall survival was compared using the stratified log-rank test. RESULTS: Among 1236 patients, 136 (11.0%) received NAT, most frequently FOLFIRINOX (25.7%). In total, 94 patients receiving NAT were matched to 94 patients undergoing upfront resection. NAT was associated with less postoperative major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a, 10.6% vs. 23.4%, P = 0.020) and pancreatic fistula grade B/C (9.6% vs. 21.3%, P = 0.026). NAT did not improve overall survival [27 (95% CI 14-39) versus 31 months (95% CI 19-42), P = 0.277], as compared with upfront resection. In a sensitivity analysis of 251 patients with radiographic tumor involvement of splenic vessels, NAT (n = 37, 14.7%) was associated with prolonged overall survival [36 (95% CI 18-53) versus 20 months (95% CI 15-24), P = 0.049], as compared with upfront resection. CONCLUSION: In this international multicenter cohort study, NAT for resected PDAC in pancreatic body or tail was associated with less morbidity and pancreatic fistula but similar overall survival in comparison with upfront resection. Prospective studies should confirm a survival benefit of NAT in patients with PDAC and splenic vessel involvement.