Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Postoperative results, learning curve, and outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection: a single-center retrospective cohort study on 236 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Newer chemotherapy regimens are reviving the role of pancreatectomy with arterial resection (PAR) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, concerns about the early outcomes and learning curve of PAR remain. This study aimed to define the postoperative results and learning curve of PAR and provide preliminary data on oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single center's experiences (1993-2023) were retrospectively analyzed to define the postoperative outcomes and learning curve of PAR. Oncologic results were also reported. RESULTS: During the study period 236 patients underwent PAR. Eighty PAR (33.9%) were performed until 2012, and 156 were performed thereafter (66.1%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed histologically in 183 patients (77.5%). Induction therapy was delivered to 18 of these patients (31.0%) in the early experience and to 101 patients (80.8%) in the last decade (P<0.0001). The superior mesenteric artery (PAR-SMA), celiac trunk/hepatic artery (PAR-CT/HA), superior mesenteric/portal vein, and inferior vena cava were resected in 95 (40.7%), 138 (59.2%), 189 (80.1%), and 9 (3.8%) patients, respectively. Total gastrectomy was performed in 35 (18.5%) patients. The thirty-day mortality rate was 7.2% and ninety-day mortality rate was 9.7%. The learning curve for mortality was 106 PAR (16.0% vs. 4.6%; odds ratio, OR=0.25 [0.10-0.67], P=0.0055). Comparison between the PAR-SMA and PAR-CT/HA groups showed no differences in severe postoperative complications (25.3% vs. 20.6%), 90-day mortality (12.6% vs. 7.8%), and median overall survival. Vascular invasion was confirmed in 123 patients (67.2%). The median number (interquartile range) of examined lymph nodes was 60.5 (41.3-83) and rate of R0 resection was 66.1% (121/183). Median overall survival for PAR was 20.9 (12.5-42.8) months, for PAR-SMA was 20.2 (14.4-44) months, and for PAR-CT/HA was 20.2 (11.4-42.7). Long-term prognosis improved by study decade (1993-2002: 12.0 [5.4-25.9] months, 2003-2012: 15.1 [9.8-23.4] months, and 2013-present: 26.2 [14.3-51.5] months; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In recent times, PAR is associated with improved outcomes despite a steep learning curve. Pancreatic surgeons should be prepared to face the technical challenge posed by PAR.

Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.

Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR. METHODS: The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video. RESULTS: Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC). METHODS: Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%. CONCLUSION: C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.

Outcomes of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the technique and the results of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and total pancreatectomy (TP). METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was analyzed retrospectively to identify incidence and severity of biliary leaks (BL) (ISGLS definition), as well as of HJ stenosis (HJS), cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ (in patients with a follow-up ≥3 years) in a consecutive series of 800 procedures (PD = 603; TP = 197). Predictors of biliary complications were also identified. RESULTS: BLs occurred in 5 patients (0.6%), including 2 (0.3%) combined pancreatic and biliary leaks. Rates of HJS, cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ were 6.1%, 5.4%, and 2.0%, respectively. Incidence of BL was 0.6% in open procedures (4/587) and 0.4% in robotic operations (1/213). Incidence of late biliary complications was also equivalent in open and robotic procedures. Occurrence of BL was predicted by ASA IV status and duodenal cancer, HJS by any associated vascular procedure and hepatic duct size < 8 mm, cholangitis by any associated vascular procedure and normal bilirubin/hepatic enzymes, and redo HJ by history of cholecystectomy and neuroendocrine tumor/cancer. DISCUSSION: Double layer continuous suture HJ is associated with low BL rates, and an acceptable incidence of late complications.

Treating Type 1 Diabetes by Pancreas Transplant Alone: A Cohort Study on Actual Long-term (10 Years) Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Physiologically regulated insulin secretion and euglycemia are achievable in type 1 diabetes (T1D) by islet or pancreas transplantation. However, pancreas transplant alone (PTA) remains a debated approach, with uncertainties on its relative benefits and risks. We determined the actual long-term (10 y) efficacy and safety of PTA in carefully characterized T1D subjects. METHODS: This is a single-center, cohort study in 66 consecutive T1D subjects who received a PTA between April 2001 and December 2007, and were then all followed until 10 y since transplant. Main features evaluated were patient survival, pancreas graft function, C-peptide levels, glycemic parameters, and the function of the native kidneys. RESULTS: Ten-year actual patient survival was 92.4%. Optimal (insulin independence) or good (minimal insulin requirement) graft function was observed in 57.4% and 3.2% of patients, respectively. Six (9.0%) patients developed stage 5 or 4 chronic kidney disease. In the remaining individuals bearing a successful PTA, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline per year was -2.29 ± 2.69 mL/min/1.73 m2. Reduction of eGFR at 1 y post-PTA was higher in those with pre-PTA hyperfiltration and higher HbA1c concentrations; eGFR changes afterward significantly correlated with diabetes duration. In recipients with normoglycemia at 10 y, 74% of normoalbuminuric or microalbuminuric subjects pre-PTA remained stable, and 26% progressed toward a worse stage; conversely, in 62.5% of the macroalbuminuric individuals albuminuria severity regressed. CONCLUSIONS: These long-term effects of PTA on patient survival, graft function, and the native kidneys support PTA as a suitable approach to treat diabetes in selected T1D patients.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series.

This study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of robot-assisted total pancreatectomy (RATP) to open total pancreatectomy (OPT) based on an intention-to-treat analysis, having occurrence of severe post-operative complications (SPC) as primary study endpoint. The two groups were matched (2:1) by propensity scores. Assuming a rate of SPC of 22.5% (non-inferiority margin: 15%; α: 0.05; ß: 0.20; power: 80%), a total of 25 patients were required per group. During the study period (October 2008-December 2019), 209 patients received a total pancreatectomy. After application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, matched groups were extracted from an overall cohort of 132 patients (OPT: 107; RATP: 25). Before matching, the two groups were different with respect to prevalence of cardiac disease (24.3% versus 4.0%; p = 0.03), presence of jaundice (45.8% versus 12.0%; p = 0.002), presence of a biliary drainage (23.4% versus 0; p = 0.004), history of weight loss (28.0% versus 8.0%; p = 0.04), and vein involvement (55.1% versus 28.0%) (p = 0.03). After matching, the two groups (OTP: 50; RATP: 25) were well balanced. Regarding primary study endpoint, SPC developed in 13 patients (26.0%) after OTP and in 6 patients (24.0%) after RATP (p = 0.85). Regarding secondary study endpoints, RATP was associated with longer median operating times [475 (408.8-582.5) versus 585 min (525-637.5) p = 0.003]. After a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (10.4-71), overall survival time [22.6 (11.2-81.2) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.006] and cancer-specific survival [22.6 (11.2-NA) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.02] were improved in patients undergoing RATP. In carefully selected patients, robot-assisted total pancreatectomy is non-inferior to open total pancreatectomy regarding occurrence of severe post-operative complications.

Factors predicting survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing pancreatectomy with arterial resection.

Pancreatectomy with arterial resection is a treatment option in selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to identify factors predicting cancer-specific survival in this patient population. A single-Institution prospective database was used. Pre-operative prognostic factors were identified and used to develop a prognostic score. Matching with pathologic parameters was used for internal validation. In a patient population with a median Ca 19.9 level of 19.8 U/mL(IQR: 7.1-77), cancer-specific survival was predicted by: metabolic deterioration of diabetes (OR = 0.22, p = 0.0012), platelet count (OR = 1.00; p = 0.0013), serum level of Ca 15.3 (OR = 1.01, p = 0.0018) and Ca 125 (OR = 1.02, p = 0.00000137), neutrophils-to-lymphocytes ratio (OR = 1.16; p = 0.00015), lymphocytes-to-monocytes ratio (OR = 0.88; p = 0.00233), platelets-to-lymphocytes ratio (OR = 0.99; p = 0.00118), and FOLFIRINOX neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.57; p = 0.00144). A prognostic score was developed and three risk groups were identified. Harrell's C-Index was 0.74. Median cancer-specific survival was 16.0 months (IQR: 12.3-28.2) for the high-risk group, 24.7 months (IQR: 17.6-33.4) for the intermediate-risk group, and 39.0 months (IQR: 22.7-NA) for the low-risk group (p = 0.0003). Matching the three risk groups against pathology parameters, N2 rate was 61.9, 42.1, and 23.8% (p = 0.04), median value of lymph-node ratio was 0.07 (IQR: 0.05-0.14), 0.04 (IQR:0.02-0.07), and 0.03 (IQR: 0.01-0.04) (p = 0.008), and mean value of logarithm odds of positive nodes was - 1.07 ± 0.5, - 1.3 ± 0.4, and - 1.4 ± 0.4 (p = 0.03), in the high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups, respectively. An online calculator is available at www.survivalcalculator-lapdac-arterialresection.org . The prognostic factors identified in this study predict cancer-specific survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and low Ca 19.9 levels undergoing pancreatectomy with arterial resection.

Additional modifications to the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis versus Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula continues to occur frequently after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We have described a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was compared to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in cohorts of patients matched by propensity scores based on factors predictive of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, which was the primary endpoint of this study. Based on a noninferiority study design, 95 open pancreatoduodenectomies per group were needed. Feasibility of the modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was also shown. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed by a single surgeon. RESULTS: Between October 2011 and May 2019, there were 415 pancreatoduodenectomies with either a Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 225) or a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 190). There was 1 grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula in 190 consecutive modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomies (0.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed that the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not affected by consecutive case number. After exclusion of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy: 82; modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: 66), 267 open pancreatoduodenectomies were left, among which the matching process identified 109 pairs. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was shown to be noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy with respect to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 22.9%; odds ratio: 0.46 [0.21-0.93]; P = .03), grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 18.3%; P = .18), and grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula (0 vs 4.6%; P = .05) as well as to all secondary study endpoints. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was feasible in 66 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. In this subgroup with 1 conversion to open surgery (1.5%), a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred after 9 procedures (13.6%) with no case of grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula and a 90-day mortality of 3%. CONCLUSION: The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy described herein is noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in open pancreatoduodenectomy. This technique is also feasible in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Induction and Immunosuppressive Management of Pancreas Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved overall outcomes, rejection continues to occur frequently after pancreas transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and to provide a state-of-the-art assessment of current practice and developments of immunosuppressive regimens in pancreas transplantation. METHODS: The literature was reviewed and relevant articles were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: Induction therapy is used in approximately 90% of the transplants, with T-cell depleting antibodies being the prevalent therapy (>90%). Despite the initial enthusiasm on steroid-free regimens, maintenance protocols continue to be mostly based on a combination of steroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. Tacrolimus is used in the majority of recipients. Sirolimus is rarely used at the time of transplant and is introduced later on in approximately 10% of the recipients, mostly in the context of a switching strategy to address the side effects of calcineurin inhibitors. The overall quality of published studies was quite low, because of the retrospective design, the heterogeneity of study groups with respect to PTx categories, the inclusion of mixed recipient categories with respect to immunologic risk profile, and the use of non-standardized concurrent immunosuppressive therapies. In addition, most reported studies were clearly underpowered, and treatment outcomes were not standardized. CONCLUSION: Since approximately two decades, immunosuppression in pancreas transplantation mostly consists of induction with depleting antibodies and maintenance therapy using a combination of steroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. While true novelty would be very much needed, this review confirms the wide use and the clinical efficacy of this regimen.

Resection or repair of large peripancreatic arteries during robotic pancreatectomy.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is eventually gaining momentum, but concerns remain regarding the ability to manage challenging operative scenarios. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients who received arterial resection, or required arterial repair, during robot-assisted pancreatic resection (RA-PR). All procedures were video recorded. Between October 2008 and June 2019, a total of 361 RA-PR were performed. Associated vascular procedures were required in 31 patients (8.5%), including resection or repair of arterial segments in five cases (1.3%): celiac trunk (n = 1), hepatic artery (n = 2), splenic artery (n = 1), and superior mesenteric artery (n = 1). In three patients, an arterial resection was required to manage tumor infiltration. In the remaining two patients, an intraoperative injury demanded arterial repair. All procedures were completed without conversion to open surgery and no patient developed severe complications. At the longest follow-up, all vascular reconstructions are patent. Our results do not call for more liberal use of robotic assistance in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic tumors, but rather emphasize the importance of proper preoperative planning and the need for advanced vascular skills for safe implementation of RA-PR.

A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status.

BACKGROUND: No study has shown the oncologic non-inferiority of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: This is a single institution propensity score matched study comparing RPD and ODP for resectable PC, based on factors predictive of R1 resection (≤ 1 mm). Only patients operated on after completion of the learning curve in both procedures and for whom circumferential margins were assessed according to the Leeds pathology protocol were included. The primary study endpoint was the rate of R1 resection. Secondary study endpoints were as follows: number of examined lymph nodes (N), rate of perioperative transfusions, percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapies, occurrence of local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT). RESULTS: Factors associated with R1 resection were tumor diameter, number of positive N, N ratio, logarithm odds of positive N, and duodenal infiltration. The matching process identified 20 RPDs and 24 OPDs. All RPDs were completed robotically. R1 resection was identified in 11 RPDs (55.0%) and in 10 OPDs (41.7%) (p = 0.38). There was no difference in the rate of R1 at each margin as well as in the proportion of patients with multiple R1 margins. RPD and OPD were also equivalent with respect to all secondary study endpoints, with a trend towards lower rate of blood transfusions in RPD. Based on the figures presented herein, a non-inferiority RCT comparing RPD and OPD having the rate of R1 resection as the primary study endpoint requires 3355 pairs. CONCLUSIONS: RPD and OPD achieved the same rate of R1 resections in resectable PC. RPD was also non-inferior to OPD with respect to all secondary study endpoints. Because of the high number of patients required to run a RCT, further assessment of RPD for PC would require the implementation of an international registry.

Management of pregnancy-associated pancreatic cystic tumors: Review of the literature and results of a Pancreas Club Inc. Survey.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Management of patients with pregnancy-associated cyst pancreatic cystic tumors (PA-PCT) is complicated by lack of large series. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to extrapolate data on management of PA-PCT, and make a questionnaire on pending issues to be administered to the members of the Pancreas Club Inc. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated a total of 35 PA-PCT in 34 women, described exclusively in the form of case reports, and permitted the identification of eleven key questions to be addressed in the survey. The combined analysis of literature review and survery responses provided several information. First, PA-PCT are predominantly located in the body-tail of the pancreas, cause non-specific symptoms, are of large size (mean size: 11.2 ±â€¯4.5 cm), and are nearly always malignant or premalignant, making timing of surgery, and not indication for surgery, the main issue in the management of these tumors. Second, there is a risk of PA-PCT rupture during pregnancy. Ruptured PA-PCT had a mean size 13.5 ±â€¯4.9 cm, but no prognostic factor could be identified. Survey opinions suggested that this occurrence is quite rare, even for large tumors. Third, most pregnancies were conducted to term (mean gestational age: 40.5 ±â€¯0.7 weeks), with a vaginal delivery. Fourth, all procedures were carried out through an open approach and the spleen was rarely preserved. Survey indicated instead that laparoscopy could play a role, and that the spleen should be preserved when feasible. CONCLUSIONS: PA-PCT require individualized treatment. The definition of a management algorithm requires the implementation of an International Registry.

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: After internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT). RESULTS: No patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91-3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01-7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01-4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.

Duodenal graft complications requiring duodenectomy after pancreas and pancreas-kidney transplantation.

Duodenal graft complications are poorly reported complications of pancreas transplantation that can result in graft loss. Excluding patients with early graft failure, after a median follow-up period of 126 months (range 23-198) duodenectomy was required in 14 of 312 pancreas transplants (4.5%). All patients were insulin-independent at the time of diagnosis. Reasons for duodenectomy included delayed duodenal graft perforation (n = 10, 71.5%) and refractory duodenal graft bleeding (n = 4, 28.5%). In patients with duodenal graft bleeding, a total duodenectomy was performed. In patients with duodenal graft perforation, preservation of a duodenal segment was possible in five patients but completion duodenectomy was necessary in one patient. After total duodenectomy, immediate enteric duct drainage was feasible in seven patients. In two patients, a pancreaticocutaneous fistula was created that was subsequently converted to enteric drainage in one patient. In the other patient, enteric fistulization occurred as a consequence of silent pressure perforation of the draining catheter on the ascending colon. After a mean follow-up period of 52 months (21-125), all patients were alive, well, and insulin-independent. An aggressive and timely surgical approach may permit graft rescue in patients with severe duodenal graft complications occurring after pancreas transplantation. Generalization of these results remains to be established.