Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

The Oncologic Impact of Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Body and the Tail: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) on patient disease-specific survival and recurrence after curative distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-control analysis. METHODS: We examined the data of adult patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the body and tail of the pancreas undergoing curative DP, over a 10-year period in 12 European surgical departments, from a prospectively implemented database. RESULTS: Among the 382 included patients, 283 met the strict inclusion criteria; 139 were males (49.1%) and the median age of the entire population was 70 years (range 37-88). A total of 121 POPFs were observed (42.8%), 42 (14.9%) of which were CR-POPFs. The median follow-up period was 24 months (range 3-120). Although poorer in the POPF group, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) did not differ significantly between patients with and without CR-POPF (p = 0.224 and p = 0.165, respectively). CR-POPF was not significantly associated with local or peritoneal recurrence (p = 0.559 and p = 0.302, respectively). A smaller percentage of patients benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy after POPF (76.2% vs. 83.8%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.228). CONCLUSIONS: CR-POPF is a major complication after DP but it did not affect the postoperative therapeutic path or long-term oncologic outcomes. CR-POPF was not a predictive factor for disease recurrence and was not associated with an increased incidence of peritoneal or local relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04348084.

Vascular Resection During Hepatectomy for Liver Malignancies. Results from a Tertiary Center using Autologous Peritoneal Patch for Venous Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate early outcomes of venous reconstruction with peritoneal patch (PP) during resection for hepatic malignancies. METHODS: Since May 2015, PP was considered as the first option for venous reconstruction in the case of lateral resection. Between May 2015 and June 2019, 579 consecutive hepatectomies for malignancies were performed at our institution. Among 27 patients requiring venous resection, PP was used in 22, who were included in the present study. Data from a prospectively collected database were analysed. RESULTS: Tumour types were ten colorectal metastases (CRLM), six intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, four hilar cholangiocarcinomas, one hepatocellular carcinoma and one gallbladder carcinoma. Hepatectomies were major in 50% of cases. Eleven patients had hepatic vein resections, eight portal vein and three inferior vena cava. Venous reconstruction enabled resection in 12 (54.5%) patients, otherwise non-resectable. Among CRLM, the venous reconstruction allowed avoidance of major resection in eight (80%) cases. Median operative time was 456 min (range 270-960). Blood loss was a median 300 cc (range 40-1500), and blood transfusions were required in three patients (13.6%). At pathological examination, venous infiltration was confirmed in 14 (63.6%) patients. No vascular complications related to the patch were recorded. Post-operative major (Dindo III/IV) complications were observed in two (9%) patients. One patient died because of liver failure without vascular thrombosis and one due to biliary fistula complicated by arterial bleeding. Overall, post-operative mortality was 9% (2/22). CONCLUSIONS: Venous reconstruction with peritoneal patch during hepatectomy for malignancies can feasibly allow resection in otherwise unresectable patients and decrease the rate of major resection in colorectal liver metastases.

Impact of primary tumor location on patterns of recurrence and survival of patients undergoing resection of liver metastases from colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described a worse prognosis for right-sided colon cancer compared to left-sided. The aim of this study was to compare patterns of recurrence and survival following resection of liver metastases (LM) from right-sided (RS) versus left-sided (LS) colon cancer. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for colon cancer LM between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. Rectal cancer, multiple primaries and unknown location were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 995 patients, 686 fulfilled inclusion criteria (RS-LM = 322, LS-LM = 364). RS colon cancer had higher prevalence of metastatic lymph nodes (67.4% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.008). RS-LM were more often mucinous (16.8% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.001) and G3 (58.3% vs. 48.9%, P = 0.014). 451 (65.7%) patients experienced recurrence (RS-LM 68.9% vs. LS-LM 62.9%). In RS-LM group, recurrence was more often encephalic (2.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.029) and at multiple sites (34.2% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.012). The rate of re-resection was lower in RS-LM patients (27.9% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.024). Multivariate analysis showed RS-LM to have worse 5-year overall (35.8% vs. 51.2%, P = 0.002) and disease-free survival (26% vs. 43.6%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: RS-LM is associated with worse survival and aggressive recurrences, with lower chance of re-resection.

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.

Incidence and reasons of pancreatic resection in patients with asymptomatic serous cystadenoma.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Despite diagnostic refinements, pancreatic resection (PR) is eventually performed in some patients with asymptomatic serous cystadenoma (A-SCA). The aim of this study was to define incidence and reasons of PR in A-SCA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed for all the patients referred for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) between January 2005 and March 2016. RESULTS: Overall, there were 1488 patients with PCL, including 1271 (85.4%) with incidental PCL (I-PCL). During the study period referral of I-PCL increased 8.5-fold. Surgery was immediately advised in 94 I-PCL (7.3%) and became necessary later on in 11 additional patients (0.9%), because of the development of symptoms. Overall, PR was performed in 105/1271 patients presenting with I-PCL (8.2%), including 27 with A-SCA (2.1%). All patients with A-SCA underwent ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 21 patients (77.8%), 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography in 8 (29.6%), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in 2 (7.4%), and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in 1 (3.7%). These studies demonstrated a combination of atypical features such as solid tumor (3; 11.1%), oligo-/macrocystic tumor (24; 88.8%), mural nodules (14; 51.8%), enhancing cyst walls (17; 62.9%), dilation of the main pancreatic duct (3; 11.1%), and upstream pancreatic atrophy (1; 3.7%). Additionally, 14/27 patients (51.8%) were females with oligo-/macrocystic tumors located in the body-tail of the pancreas. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with A-SCA entails a small risk of PR especially when these tumors demonstrate atypical radiologic features associated with confounding anatomic and demographic characteristics.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections.

BACKGROUND: Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR). METHODS: Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD). RESULTS: Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8-45.3 vs. 36; 28-52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation.

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection.

PURPOSE: This study aims to define the current status of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric/portal vein (RPD-SMV/PV). METHODS: Our experience on RPD, including RPD-SMV/PV, is presented along with a description of the surgical technique and a systematic review of the literature on RPD-SMV/PV. RESULTS: We have performed 116 RPD and 14 RPD-SMV/PV. Seven additional cases of RPD-SMV/PV were identified in the literature. In our experience, RPD and RPD-SMV/PV were similar in all baseline variables, but lower mean body mass and higher prevalence of pancreatic cancer in RPD-SMV/PV. Regarding the type of vein resection, there were one type 2 (7.1 %), five type 3 (35.7 %) and eight type 4 (57.2 %) resections. As compared to RPD, RPD-SMV/PV required longer operative time, had higher median estimated blood loss, and blood transfusions were required more frequently. Incidence and severity of post-operative complications were not increased in RPD-SMV/PV, but post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage occurred more frequently after this procedure. In pancreatic cancer, RPD-SMV/PV was associated with a higher mean number of examined lymph nodes (60.0 ± 13.9 vs 44.6 ± 11.0; p = 0.02) and with the same rate of microscopic margin positivity (25.0 % vs 26.1 %). Mean length or resected vein was 23.1 ± 8.08 mm. Actual tumour infiltration was discovered in ten patients (71.4 %), reaching the adventitia in four patients (40.0 %), the media in two patients (20.0 %), and the intima in four patients (40.0 %). Literature review identified seven additional cases, all reported to have successful outcome. CONCLUSIONS: RPD-SMV/PV is feasible in carefully selected patients. The generalization of these results remains to be demonstrated.

Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty. METHODS: The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver 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.

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.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Robot-Assisted Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy Including Resection and Reconstruction of the Spleno-Mesenteric Junction.

This article shows the technique of robot-assisted radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy, including resection and reconstruction of the spleno-mesenteric junction, for cancer of the body-tail of the pancreas. The patient is placed supine with the legs parted and a pneumoperitoneum is established and maintained at 10 mmHg. To use the surgical system, four 8 mm ports and one 12 mm port are required. The optic port is placed at the umbilicus. The other ports are placed, on either side, along the pararectal line and the anterior axillary line at the level of the umbilical line. The assistant port (12 mm) is placed along the right pararectal line. Dissection begins by detaching the gastrocolic ligament, thus opening the lesser sac, and by a wide mobilization of the splenic flexure of the colon. The superior mesenteric vein is identified along the inferior border of the pancreas. Lymph node number 8a is removed to permit clear visualization of the common hepatic artery. A tunnel is then created behind the neck of the pancreas. To permit safe resection and reconstruction of the spleno-mesenteric junction, further preemptive dissection is required before dividing the pancreatic neck to bring in clear view all relevant vascular pedicles. Next, the splenic artery is ligated and divided, and the pancreatic neck is divided, with selective ligature of the pancreatic duct. After vein resection and reconstruction, dissection proceeds to complete the clearance of peripancreatic arteries that are peeled off from all lympho-neural tissues. Both celiac ganglia are removed en-bloc with the specimen. The Gerota fascia covering the upper pole of the left kidney is also removed en-bloc with the specimen. Division of short gastric vessels and splenectomy complete the procedure. A drain is left near the pancreatic stump. The round ligament of the liver is mobilized to protect the vessels.

A retrospective study on efficacy of the ERAS protocol in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn disease: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) offers many benefits for patients with colorectal cancer. However, its application to patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is questioned. AIM: The aim of this propensity-matched study was to validate the results of ERAS protocol on CD patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing ileocolic resection for primary or relapsed CD from 2007 to 2018 were retrospectively analyzed and propensity-matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs standard of care). Demographic characteristics, length of stay, bowel function, oral intake, and perioperative morbidity were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety four out of 299 patients were selected for analysis. No significant difference was observed for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, previous surgery and therapy, operative time and laparoscopy. The median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 6 and 8 days (p < 0.001). Median postoperative days of first bowel movement and solid oral intake were day 1 and day 2 p < 0,001, and day 2 and day 4.5 p < 0,001 in ERAS and non-ERAS group, respectively. No statistically differences in other postoperative outcomes were shown. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation showed decreased length of stay, faster bowel function restoration and earlier solid oral intake in patients who underwent laparoscopic or open ileocolic resection for primary or relapsing CD.

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.

Acute abdomen caused by greater omentum torsion: A case report and review of the literature.

Torsion of the greater omentum is a rare cause of acute abdomen. Based on etiopathogenesis, it can be classified as primary or secondary. However, regardless of the cause, segmentary or diffuse omental necrosis will follow. Preoperative diagnosis is not easy, though abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) scans may show peculiar features suggestive of omental torsion. Laparoscopic resection of the affected omentum is the treatment of choice. Presently reported was a case of primary omental torsion, in addition to a comprehensive literature review.

Indications, technique, and results of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Robotic assistance improves surgical dexterity in minimally invasive operations, especially when fine dissection and multiple sutures are required. As such, robotic assistance could be rewarding in the setting of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). RPD was implemented at a high volume center with preemptive experience in advanced laparoscopy. Indications, surgical technique, and results of RPD are discussed against the background of current literature. RPD was performed in 112 consecutive patients. Conversion to open surgery was required in three patients, despite nine required segmental resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric/portal vein. No patient was converted to laparoscopy. A pancreato-jejunostomy was created in 106 patients (94.6 %), using either a duct-to-mucosa (n = 82; 73.2 %) or an invaginating (n = 24; 21.4 %) technique. Pancreato-gastrostomy was performed in one patient, the pancreatic duct was occluded in two patients, and a pancreatico-cutaneous fistula was created in three patients. Mean operative time was 526.3 ± 102.4 in the entire cohort and reduced significantly over the course of time. Experience was also associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying and increased proportion of malignant tumor histology. Ninety day mortality was 3.6 %. Postoperative complications occurred in 83 patients (74.1 %) with a median comprehensive complication index of 20.9 (0-30.8). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula occurred in 19.6 % of the patients. No grade C pancreatic fistula was noted in the last 72 consecutive patients. RPD is safely feasible in selected patients. Implementation of RPD requires sound experience with open pancreatoduodenectomy and advanced laparoscopic procedures, as well as specific training with the robotic platform.