Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary lesions of minor papilla.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ampullary lesions (ALs) of the minor duodenal papilla are extremely rare. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a routinely used treatment for AL of the major duodenal papilla, but the role of EP for minor AL has not been accurately studied. METHODS: We identified 20 patients with ALs of minor duodenal papilla in the multicentric database from the Endoscopic Papillectomy vs Surgical Ampullectomy vs Pancreatitcoduodenectomy for Ampullary Neoplasm study, which included 1422 EPs. We used propensity score matching (nearest-neighbor method) to match these cases with ALs of the major duodenal papilla based on age, sex, histologic subtype, and size of the lesion in a 1:2 ratio. Cohorts were compared by means of chi-square or Fisher exact test as well as Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Propensity score-based matching identified a cohort of 60 (minor papilla 20, major papilla 40) patients with similar baseline characteristics. The most common histologic subtype of lesions of minor papilla was an ampullary adenoma in 12 patients (3 low-grade dysplasia and 9 high-grade dysplasia). Five patients revealed nonneoplastic lesions. Invasive cancer (T1a), adenomyoma, and neuroendocrine neoplasia were each found in 1 case. The rate of complete resection, en-bloc resection, and recurrences were similar between the groups. There were no severe adverse events after EP of lesions of minor papilla. One patient had delayed bleeding that could be treated by endoscopic hemostasis, and 2 patients showed a recurrence in surveillance endoscopy after a median follow-up of 21 months (interquartile range, 12-50 months). CONCLUSIONS: EP is safe and effective in ALs of the minor duodenal papilla. Such lesions could be managed according to guidelines for EP of major duodenal papilla.

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers.

Importance: Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data. Objective: To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Exposures: The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C. Results: From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated. Conclusion and Relevance: In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.