Laparoscopic Central Pancreatectomy with Modified Blumgart Pancreatojejunostomy for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor.

INTRODUCTION: This report with a video describes a laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with modified Blumgart pancreatojejunostomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 71-year-old woman presented with a single 17 mm lesion in the pancreatic neck, responsible for dilatation of the main pancreatic duct. Cancer staging showed no additional location. Somatostatin receptor imaging was positive. After a multidisciplinary discussion in the French national reference network for the management of neuroendocrine tumor (RENATEN) surgery with central pancreatectomy was decided. RESULTS: The operation time was 320 min and the estimated blood loss was less than 100 ml. Final pathology confirmed a pancreatic NET of 13 mm staged as T1 N0 M0 R0 G1 with a Ki-67 of 2%. After lymph node dissection, five nodes were analyzed and were found to be noninvaded. The postoperative course was uneventful. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is an excellent alternative for sparing pancreatic parenchyma.

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Efficacy of pancreaticojejunostomy of the pancreatic stump during distal or central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: A stapler is usually used for transection and closure of the pancreas in distal pancreatectomy (DP) or central pancreatectomy (CP). When the pancreas is transected to the right of the portal vein, it is difficult to use a stapler and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) frequently occurs. We report on the efficacy of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) of the pancreatic stump for patients in whom stapler use is difficult. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP or CP were enrolled in this study. The pancreas was usually transected by a stapler, and ultrasonic coagulating shears (UCS) were used depending on the tumor situation. When using UCS, hand-sewn closure or PJ was performed for the pancreatic stump. The relationship between clinicopathological factors and the methods of pancreatic transection and closure were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 164 patients underwent DP or CP, and the pancreas was transected with a stapler in 150 patients and UCS in 14 patients. The rate of CR-POPF was higher and the postoperative hospital stay was longer in the UCS group than in the stapler group. PJ of the pancreatic stump, which was performed for 7 patients, did not worsen intraoperative factors. CR-POPF was not seen in these 7 patients, which was significantly less than that with hand-sewn closure. CONCLUSIONS: PJ of the pancreatic stump during DP or CP reduces CR-POPF compared with hand-sewn closure and may be useful especially when the pancreas is transected to the right of the portal vein.

Central versus distal pancreatectomy for low-grade and benign pancreatic neck-body tumours.

PURPOSE: Central pancreatectomy (CP) offers parenchymal preservation compared to conventional distal pancreato-splenectomy for pancreatic neck and body tumours. However, it is associated with more morbidity. This study is aimed at evaluating the peri-operative and long-term functional outcomes, comparing central and distal pancreatectomies (DPs). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing pancreatic resections for low-grade malignant or benign tumours in pancreatic neck and body was performed (from January 2007 to December 2022). Preoperative imaging was reviewed for all cases, and only patients with uninvolved pancreatic tail, whereby a CP was feasible, were included. Peri-operative outcomes and long-term functional outcomes were compared between CP and DP. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two (5.2%) patients, amongst the total of 2304 pancreatic resections, underwent central or distal pancreatectomy for low-grade malignant or benign tumours. CP was feasible in 55 cases, of which 23 (42%) actually underwent CP and the remaining 32 (58%) underwent DP. CP group had a significantly longer operative time [370 min (IQR 300-480) versus 300 min (IQR 240-360); p = 0.002]; however, the major morbidity (43.5% versus 37.5%; p = 0.655) and median hospital stay (10 versus 11 days; p = 0.312) were comparable. The long-term endocrine functional outcome was favourable for the CP group [endocrine insufficiency rate was 13.6% in central versus 42.8% in distal (p = 0.046)]. CONCLUSION: Central pancreatectomy offers better long-term endocrine function without any increased morbidity in low malignant potential or benign pancreatic tumours of neck and body region.

Central Pancreatectomy - A Novel Surgical Technique Single Institution Experience.

Aims: Children evaluated for abdominal pain are increasingly recognized to have pancreatic lesions by imaging modalities. Malignant lesions of the pancreas have also been diagnosed at regular intervals, the most common being solid cystic pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPT) - Borderline (uncertain malignant potential). Surgical resection of this tumor should provide adequate tumor free margins and also should preserve pancreatic tissue. Radical resection of the pancreas will lead to pancreatic insufficiency. Herein, we describe the technique of central pancreatectomy wherein tumor excision gives adequate clearance but preserves the pancreatic tissue, thereby reducing significant morbidity. Materials and Methods: Three children ages ranging between 11 to 12 years diagnosed to have SPT were included in the study. Results: All children underwent successful central pancreatectomy and had an uneventful post operative recovery. Conclusion: Central pancreatectomy offers a good volume of remanant pancreas preserving near normal pancreatic function making it an ideal procedure for select cases.

Jejunum Patch Technique During Robot-Assisted Central Pancreatectomy: A Lesson from Open Procedure Experience.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) has been established as the most common type of parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomy;1 however, CP is associated with higher morbidity and a higher pancreatic fistula (PF) rate than distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.2,3 The jejunum patch technique (JPT) for distal pancreatectomy has recently been applied, which efficiently decreases the incidence of PF.4 We have adapted this technique to CP as well as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection.5 Here, we retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of JPT for open CP cases, and report the experience of robot-assisted CP using the JPT. METHODS: Among 37 consecutive cases who underwent CP at our institution between 2011 and 2022, clinical characteristics and postoperative short-term outcomes were compared between patients who underwent CP with and without the JPT. In robot-assisted CP using the JPT, after resection of the middle of the pancreas the transected jejunum was elevated through the retrocolic route in a Roux-en-Y fashion. The pancreatic stump was covered by the JPT using a modified Blumgart technique, following pancreaticojejunostomy for the distal side.6 RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 19 patients underwent CP using the JPT. The clinically relevant PF rate of the JPT group was significantly lower (47.4%) than the no-JPT group (83.3%, p = 0.022), and the length of drainage and hospital stay were shorter in the JPT group (p= 0.010 and p = 0.017, respectively). The blood loss of robot-assisted CP using the JPT was 20 mL, and the JPT took only 15 min. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted CP using the JPT is an easy-to-use and promising procedure, based on experience and outcomes from open surgery.

Early experience with robotic central pancreatectomy with patient-reported outcomes and comparison with open central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic central pancreatectomy (CP) has emerged in recent years as a noninferior approach to open CP and may offer improved patient-reported outcomes and reduction in incisional hernias. METHODS: All patients who underwent open and robotic CP between (2013 and 2022) were selected, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Patients who underwent robotic CP were interviewed over the phone to assess patient-reported postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 18 CP operations (56%-open vs. 44%-robotic) were identified. The overall median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 60-72), and 50% (n = 9) of patients were female. Median length of surgery was statistically longer for robotic CP (411 vs. 138 min, p = 0.002); all other intraoperative variables were similar. Postoperatively, a similar number of patients in the open and robotic cohorts developed clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (37.5% vs. 30%, p = 1) and major complications (37.5% vs. 20%, p = 0.60), respectively. No patients in the robotic cohort developed an incisional hernia, compared to 40% (n = 4) in open (p = 0.08). All patients returned to a baseline level of activity and reported a high quality of life. CONCLUSION: With the exception of longer operative times, robotic CP is a noninferior, definitive resection technique for select lesions of the middle pancreas. Additionally, the robotic approach may result in a reduction in incisional hernia development.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

AIMS: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP. METHODS: In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP). METHODS: Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed. RESULTS: Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM. CONCLUSION: LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP). METHODS: A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP. RESULTS: Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed. CONCLUSION: Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

[Learning curve analysis of 73 cases of central pancreatectomy].

Objective: To explore the learning curve of central pancreatectomy (CP) and provide an excellent reference for surgeons to get the point of this operation. Methods: Clinical data of 73 patients who underwent CP in the same operation team from January 2006 to January 2018 were collected and retrospectively analyzed by the moving average method (MAM) and the cumulative sum method (CUSUM). Data was analyzed by statistical package for social science (SPSS) software. Results: According to the MAM and CUSUM curves, the learning process of CP could be divided into two stages. At the first stage (n=1-11), the median operation time was 340 minutes and the median intraoperative hemorrhage was 400 ml. In the second stage (n=12-73), the median operation time was 213 minutes and the median intraoperative hemorrhage was 100 ml. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the two stages of patients in terms of other aspects (P>0.05). Conclusions: CP can be mastered after 11 cases of exercises. In the first 11 operations, surgeons should get familiar with the operation process, respond actively to emergencies and accumulate experience to gain this surgical technique fast.

[Robotic Surgery for Pancreatic Serous Cystadenoma: Analysis of 148 Cases].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenoma. METHODS: There were 148 patients with pancreatic serous cystadenoma underwent robotic surgery from April 2015 to June 2019 in our department, the clinical data including intraoperative data, perioperative complications, and histopathological results were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 148 patients, there were 39 cases (26.4%) of the tumors located in pancreatic head, 15 cases (10.1%) in pancreatic neck and 94 cases (63.5%) in pancreatic body and tail. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, and enucleation were performed in 26 cases (17.6%), 71 cases (48.0%), 24 cases (16.2%) and 27 (18.2%) cases, respectively. The incidence of serious postoperative complications were 7.7%, 2.8%, 0, 0, respectively, and grade B pancreatic fistula were 7.7%, 7.0%, 41.7%, 14.8%, respectively. 90-day mortality was 0. Compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy, enucleation of the pancreatic head tumor had shorter operation time ( P<0.001), less intraoperative blood loss ( P<0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay ( P<0.001). Compared with central pancreatectomy+pancreaticojejunostomy, Rong central pancreatectomy had shorter operation time ( P=0.007) and length of hospital stay ( P=0.040). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenomaisis safe and feasible. Rong central pancreatectomy for serous cystadenoma in middle segmental pancreas could achieve feasible results.

Central pancreatectomy: a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers. METHODS: A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients. CONCLUSIONS: CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.

Central pancreatectomy for early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center case-control study.

PURPOSE: Central pancreatectomy (CP) has been applied for treating benign and low-grade malignant tumors in pancreatic neck, but studies regarding CP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are quite limited. We aimed to investigate the role of central pancreatectomy in the treatment of PDAC in the neck of the pancreas. METHODS: Patients who underwent CP at our hospital between 2009 and 2016 were identified. Patients treated by distal pancreatectomy (DP) were matched according to the tumor size, location, and staging. The surgical and survival outcomes were compared between the CP and DP groups. RESULTS: Nine patients had CP. Five (56%) had postoperative complications and three (33%) had clinically significant (grade B + C) fistula. No significant difference was found between the CP and DP groups for the rate of overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, reoperation, and readmission. Tumor size was smaller in the CP group compared to the DP group. The mortality of both groups was zero. The median postoperative survival was similar between the two groups (20.4 months for CP vs 19.4 months for DP, P = 0.842). CONCLUSIONS: CP is safe for patients with small PDAC at the neck of the pancreas. Considering the good preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions, CP could be considered as an alternative procedure for single small PDAC in pancreatic neck.

An end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Suturing the proximal pancreatic stump and performing pancreaticoenterostomy for the distal pancreatic stump following central pancreatectomy is a conventional procedure. This reconstruction after resection of the pathological pancreatic lesion brings changes in anatomy and physiology. In this study, an innovative one-stage robotic end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was reported to replace the conventional pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data of 11 consecutive patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis between August 2017 and December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: All operations were completed successfully without any conversion to open surgery. Nine patients had benign tumors, one had a mass-forming chronic pancreatitis, and one had an isolated pancreatic metastasis from a renal cancer. The mean gap left after central pancreatectomy was 4.3 ± 1.0 cm. The median operative time was 121 (range, 105 to 199) min. The median blood loss was 50 (range, 20 to 100) ml. Seven (63.6%) patients developed complications which included Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications in five patients, a Grade II complication in one patient, and a Grade IIIa complication in one patient. Seven patients developed a Grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula, and two patients a biochemical leak. There was no Grade C or worse pancreatic fistula. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at postoperative 6 months showed no stricture in any of the main pancreatic ducts. Three patients had an asymptomatic and small pancreatic pseudocyst. CONCLUSION: Robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was safe and feasible. It restores the normal anatomy of the pancreas. With its good short-and long-term outcomes, it could be an alternative reconstructive method to pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy.

Central pancreatectomy in portal annular pancreas for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Portal annular pancreas (PAP) is a rare congenital anatomical abnormality of the pancreas in which the portal vein is encircled by aberrant parenchyma, and special attention is needed for pancreatic resections. This is the first report of central pancreatectomy (CP) in a PAP for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year-old man who had a history of left nephrectomy for renal cancer not otherwise specified 36 years earlier and radical cystectomy for bladder cancer 4 years earlier was incidentally found to have a pancreatic tumor and a liver tumor. The pancreatic tumor was diagnosed as metastasis of clear cell RCC, and the liver tumor was diagnosed as moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on preoperative histological evaluation. Preoperative computed tomography imaging showed a type 3A PAP, in which the main pancreatic duct (MPD) ran ventral to the portal vein (anteportal type), and the aberrant parenchyma was located cranial to the confluence of the portal vein and splenic vein (suprasplenic type). After adhesiotomy and partial liver resection, CP was performed. With intraoperative ultrasound guidance, the aberrant parenchyma of the PAP could be preserved, avoiding additional resection. Thus, two pancreatic transections were performed, creating a single-cut margin that contained the MPD in the distal pancreas. Oncologically safe margins were confirmed by intraoperative pathological diagnosis. The distal pancreas was reconstructed by pancreatojejunostomy in the routine procedures. The pathological diagnosis of the surgical specimens was identical to the preoperative diagnosis. A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) developed from the proximal stump of the head of the pancreas, necessitating no specific treatment other than drainage. The patient showed no signs or symptoms of recurrent RCC or abnormal pancreatic function for 2 years after the operation, although a histologically proven new HCC lesion developed distant from the initial site 8 months after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Precise preoperative evaluation of the tumor features and PAP allowed adequate surgical strategies to be planned. Intraoperative ultrasound was useful to minimize parenchymal resections of the PAP. CP is still a challenging procedure in terms of the development of POPF.

A rare case of central pancreatectomy for isolated complete pancreatic neck transection trauma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic trauma accounts for only 0.2% of blunt trauma and 1-12% of penetrating injuries. Injuries to other organs, such as spleen, liver, or kidney, are associated with 50.5% of the cases. The isolated complete traumatic transection of the pancreatic neck is rare. In the past, pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy was the standard care for patients with traumatic transection of the pancreatic head, duodenum or distal pancreas, and pancreatic neck. However, limited cases have been reported on the central pancreatectomy for pancreatic neck injuries. We present a rare case of a 21-year-old male patient who received central pancreatectomy for isolated complete traumatic transection of the pancreatic neck. CASE PRESENTATION: A 21-year-old male patient with mild abdominal pain and showed no apparent abnormality in the initial abdominal computed tomography (CT) was brought to the local hospital's emergency department due to a traffic accident. The patient's abdominal pain became progressively worse during observation in the hospital that led to the patient being referred to our hospital. The patient's vital signs were stable, and a physical examination revealed marked tenderness and rebound pain throughout the abdomen. The patient's white blood cells were increased; The serum amylase and lipase levels were elevated. The abdominal computed tomography revealed pancreatic neck parenchymal discontinuity, peripancreatic effusion, and hemorrhage. The patient underwent exploratory laparotomy. Intraoperative examination identified the neck of the pancreas was completely ruptured, and no apparent abnormalities were observed in the other organs. The patient underwent central pancreatectomy and Roux -Y pancreaticojejunostomy. The patient was treated with antibiotics, acid inhibition and nutritional supports for 10 days after surgery. Symptoms of the patient were significantly relieved, and white blood cells, serum amylase, and lipase levels returned to normal. The patient underwent follow up examination for 6 months with no evidence of exocrine or endocrine insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Central pancreatectomy is an effective pancreas parenchyma preserving procedure, may be a promising alternative to distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy for this complex pancreatic trauma in hemodynamically stable patients. Patient selection and surgeon experience are crucial in the technical aspects of this procedure.

Is Central Pancreatectomy Truly Recommendable? A 9-Year Single-Center Experience.

AIMS: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes in patients with pancreatic benign or borderline neoplasm who underwent central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) single benign or low-grade malignant tumor; (2) tumor confined to the pancreatic neck or proximal body; and (3) tumor amenable to either CP or DP. Short and long-term outcomes, including complications, pancreatic exocrine and endocrine function, and quality of life (QoL) were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Sixteen patients who underwent CP and 26 patients who underwent DP were included. The median follow-up period was 53 months (range 21-117 months). Patients undergoing CP were significantly more likely to experience complications (68.7 vs. 23%, p = 0.003) especially grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (62.5 vs. 23%, p = 0.011) than those undergoing DP. During the long-term follow-up, 2 patients in the DP group developed new-onset diabetes mellitus, but no patient in CP group developed this condition (8 vs. 0%, p = 0.382). Evidence of exocrine insufficiency, including severe diarrhea or steatorrhea, was not observed in either group. Both groups were equally satisfied with the overall health status and overall QoL. CONCLUSION: CP is associated with excellent pancreatic function but a significantly increased postoperative morbidity and risk compared to DP. Therefore, the indication of CP should be chosen strictly.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: The studies comparing laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2015, patients who underwent central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups as laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP). Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (17 LCP and 19 OCP) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The operating time (280.4 ± 33.6 vs. 290.5 ± 62.5 min, p = 0.455) were similar between two groups. LCP group showed significantly lower estimated blood loss (76.4 ± 70.3 vs. 390.3 ± 279.0 ml, p = 0.001), shorter first flatus time (2.4 ± 0.9 vs. 3.9 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), and shorter diet start time (4.1 ± 2.2 vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 days, p = 0.030). However, the postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different between two groups (15.6 ± 12.1 vs. 24.0 ± 27.5 days, p = 0.347). Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity (58.8 vs. 52.6%, p = 0.749), pancreatic fistula rates (≥grade B: 17.6 vs. 36.8%, p = 0.106), and mortality, were similar in the 2 groups. The median follow-up period was 45 months (range 4-216 months). No local recurrence or distant metastasis was detected in either group. On the follow-up survey, the total quality of life score (702.9 ± 47.9 vs. 671.8 ± 94.1), physical health score (353.9 ± 24.8 vs. 326.6 ± 67.6) and mental health score (349.0 ± 26.5 vs. 345.2 ± 34.6) were higher in the LCP group compared with the OCP group. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The score in role physical (100 vs. 73.1 ± 4.8, p = 0.042) was significantly higher in LCP group, and not statistically significant in other areas (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LCP with pancreaticojejunostomy is safe and feasible for benign or borderline malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and proximal body. Compared to OCP, LCP is associated with lower estimated blood loss, faster recovery, and better quality of life.

Binding pancreaticogastrostomy in laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: a novel technique in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Even though more and more cases of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are reported (Machado et al. in Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(6):486-490, 2013; Hong et al. in World J Surg Oncol 10:223, 2012; Gonzalez et al. in JOP 14(3):273-276, 2013, Zhang et al. in J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(11):912-918, 2013; Sucandy et al. in N Am J Med Sci 2(9):438-441, 2010; Sa Cunha et al. in Surgery 142(3):405-409, 2007), the management for pancreatic stumps remains the most technically challenging part which is the same as in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), making it the bottleneck for laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. In open surgery, various pancreatic reconstruction techniques designed for either pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) or pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) have been attempted to reduce the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), including the binding anastomosis, invented by our team, i.e., binding PG (BPG) and binding PJ, which have been proved to be effective to reduce the POPF (Hong et al. 2012; Peng et al. in Ann Surg 245(5):692-698, 2007; Peng et al. in Updates Surg 63(2):69-74, 2011). However, despite of this, few reports are seen addressing such technique for laparoscopic surgery even though laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is more performed. After a previous successful laparoscopic BPG in a case of laparoscopic CP (LCP; Hong et al. 2012) and more than 50 cases of open PD and CP (Peng et al. 2011), we further performed laparoscopic BPG in 10 consecutive cases of LCP with satisfactory outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility and efficacy of LCP with BPG. METHODS: Between October 2011 and July 2014, LCP with laparoscopic BPG was performed in ten consecutive patients with lesions of benign or low malignancy at the pancreatic neck. Operative and pathological data, complications, hospital stay and details on the surgical techniques were introduced. RESULTS: The operations were successfully performed in all the ten cases, with no conversions. The tumor size ranged from 2.0-3.0 to 2.5-3.0 cm, average (2.50 ± 0.35) to (2.66 ± 0.35) cm, and the diameter of pancreatic duct was (1.6-2.1) mm, average (1.71 ± 0.17) mm. Operation time was 170-250 (198.50 ± 25.82) min, and blood loss was 20-300 (125 ± 107.31) mL. Three cases had grade A pancreatic fistula (PF), and one case had delayed gastric emptying, which were all managed with conservative treatment. Upper GI bleeding occurred in one case which was cured with second operation, time for the recovery of bowl movement was 3-5 (4.2 ± 0.8) days, the time for semifluid dieting was 6-10 (8.2 ± 1.5) days, and the hospital stay was 8-20 (12.8 ± 4.63) days. The postoperative fast blood sugar was (6.3 ± 1.6) mmol/L with the normal diet, which was not significantly different from the preoperative data (5.3 ± 0.5) mmol/L (P > 0.05). The postoperative pathology was as follows: five cases of cystic serous adenoma, one case of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, two cases of neuroendocrine tumor, and two cases of solid pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas. All the patients were followed up for 7-40 months, no recurrence happened, and no new incidence of diabetes or insufficiency of pancreatic exocrine function occurred. CONCLUSIONS: LCP with BPG is feasible and safe; the advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness, the efficacy for avoiding PF, and the preservation of the pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function insufficiency, making it an ideal procedure for the benign or low-malignant lesions at the pancreatic neck.