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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD. METHODS: Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections. METHODS: Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.

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.

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.

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.

Transplantation of the pancreas.

Pancreas transplantation consistently induces insulin-independence in beta-cell-penic diabetic patients, but at the cost of major surgery and life-long immunosuppression. One year after grafting, patient survival rate now exceeds 95 % across recipient categories, while insulin independence is maintained in some 85 % of simultaneous pancreas and kidney recipients and in nearly 80 % of solitary pancreas transplant recipients. The half-life of the pancreas graft currently averages 16.7 years, being the longest among extrarenal grafts, and substantially matching the one of renal grafts from deceased donors. The difference between expected (100 %) and actual insulin-independence rate is mostly explained by technical failure in the postoperative phase, and rejection in the long-term period. Death with a functioning graft remains a further major issue, especially in uremic patients who have undergone prolonged periods of dialysis. Refinements in graft preservation, surgical techniques, immunosuppression, and prophylactic treatments are expected to further improve the results of pancreas transplantation.

Central pancreatectomy with inframesocolic pancreatojejunostomy.

PURPOSE: Pancreatic fistula (PF) occurs frequently after central pancreatectomy (CP), but it is not clear from which pancreatic stump it arises and, consequently, which interventions can reduce its incidence and severity. The information could be obtained if the two pancreatic remnants were segregated into different body compartments. METHODS: In eight consecutive patients, the cut end of the distal pancreatic stump after CP was brought in the inframesocolic compartment through a small defect created in the transverse mesocolon. Pancreatojejunostomy was hence constructed in the intraperitoneal compartment, being divided by the retroperitoneal right-sided pancreatic stump by the transverse mesocolon itself. Five patients were operated on open, and three by robot-assisted laparoscopy. PF was defined according to the criteria proposed by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula. RESULTS: PF fistula developed in five out eight patients (three grade A and two grade B). Amylase concentration in the fluid obtained from surgical drains showed that the two pancreatic remnants were actually segregated into different body compartments and that four out of five PF originated from the right remnant. Mean hospital stay was 12.5 days. No patient was readmitted, developed peripancreatic fluid collections, required interventional radiology procedures, or underwent repeat surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In CP, interposing an anatomic barrier, such as the transverse mesocolon, between the two pancreatic remnants is a simple maneuver that, if on one hand, adds little to the complexity of the operation, on the other, provides insights into the origin of PF after CP.

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.

Segmental live donor pancreas transplantation: review and critique of rationale, outcomes, and current recommendations.

We herein review and comment rationale, outcomes, and current recommendations for live donor (LD) pancreas transplantation (PTx). Segmental (spleen-preserving) pancreas donation is associated with a relatively small risk of complications. The risk of death, presumably not lower than that of LD nephrectomy, cannot be estimated yet because of the lack of reported donor fatalities. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes, in non-obese donors, is expected not to exceed 3%. The risk of type 1 diabetes does not seem to increase. Segmental LD PTx, when compared to cadaver PTx, continues to carry a slightly higher risk of technical failure, but the rate of immunologic failure is consistently lower. Overall, LD PTx should be considered in all patients with a live kidney donor (owing to the shortage of cadaver kidneys, the superlative outcome of LD kidney transplantation, and the immunologic advantages of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation from the same donor). The immunologic advantages of LD PTx are emphasized in highly sensitized recipients of solitary PTx who, with cadaver donation, wait the longest time and face the poorest outcome. Furthermore, LD allows recipient pre-conditioning and/or pair donor exchange. In conclusion, LD PTx may offer significant advantages to well-selected diabetic recipients. LDs are exposed to relatively small risks.

Robotic renal transplantation: first European case.

A kidney from a 56-year-old mother was transplanted to her 37-year-old daughter laparoscopically using the daVinci HDSi surgical system. The kidney was introduced into the abdomen through a 7-cm suprapubic incision used also for the uretero-vescical anastomosis. Vascular anastomoses were carried out through a total of three additional ports. Surgery lasted 154 min, including 51 min of warm ischemia of the graft. Urine production started immediately after graft reperfusion. Renal function remains optimal at the longest follow-up of 3 months. The technique employed in this case is discussed in comparison with the only other two contemporary experiences, both from the USA. Furthermore, possible advantages and disadvantages of robotics in kidney transplantation are discussed extensively. We conclude that the daVinci surgical system allows the performance of kidney transplantation under optimal operative conditions. Further experience is needed, but it is likely that solid organ transplantation will not remain immune to robotics.