Distal pancreatectomy: en-bloc splenectomy vs spleen-preserving pancreatectomy

Distal pancreatectomy with en-bloc splenectomy has been considered the standard technique for management of benign and malignant pancreatic disorders. However, splenic preservation has recently been advocated. The aim of this study was to review the experiences of distal pancreatectomy using the open or the laparoscopic approach and to critically discuss the need to perform splenectomy. Original articles published in the English literature of peer-reviewed medical journals were selected for detailed analysis. In patients with malignant neoplasms in the body-tail of the pancreas, splenectomy has a negative influence on long-term survival after resection. The incidence of diabetes after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for chronic pancreatitis is less than after en-bloc splenectomy. Spleen salvage eliminates the risk of overwhelming infections. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy may be preferable for the advantages of a minimally invasive approach.     

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.     

Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has been regarded as a safe and effective treatment for benign and borderline malignant pancreatic lesions. However, its application for left-sided pancreatic cancer is still being debated. The clinical evidence for radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)-based minimally invasive approaches for left-sided pancreatic cancer was reviewed. Potential indications and surgical concepts for minimally invasive RAMPS were suggested. Despite the limited clinical evidence for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic cancer, the currently available clinical evidence supports the use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy under oncologic principles in well-selected left sided pancreatic cancers. A pancreas-confined tumor with an intact fascia layer between the pancreas and left adrenal gland/kidney positioned more than 1 or 2 cm away from the celiac axis is thought to constitute a good condition for the use of margin-negative minimally invasive RAMPS. The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) anterior RAMPS is feasible and safe for margin-negative resection in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. The oncologic feasibility of the procedure remains to be determined; however, the currently available interim results indicate that even oncologic outcomes will not be inferior to those of open radical distal pancreatosplenectomy.     

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neoplasms: A retrospective study

AIM: To describe the clinical characteristics, technical procedures, and outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) for benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms.METHODS: The clinical data of 38 patients who underwent LSPDP in the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital between January 2003 and August 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Surgical techniques for LSPDP included preservation of the splenic artery and vein (Kimura’s technique) and ligation of the splenic pedicle with preservation of the short gastric vessels (Warshaw’s technique).RESULTS: There were no conversions to open surgery in the 38 patients. Splenic vessels were conserved during spleen-preserving pancreatectomy, except in two patients who underwent resection of the splenic vessels and preservation only of the short gastric vessels. The mean operation time was 123.2 ± 52.4 min, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 78.2 ± 39.5 mL, and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.6 ± 2.9 d. The overall rate of postoperative complications was 18.4% (7/38), and the rate of clinical pancreatic fistula was 13.2% (5/38). All postoperative complications were treated conservatively. The postoperative pathological diagnoses were 22 cases of benign pancreatic disease and 16 cases of borderline or low-grade malignant lesions. During a median follow-up of 38 mo (range: 5-133 mo), no recurrence was observed.CONCLUSION: LSPDP is a safe, feasible and effective procedure for the treatment of benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the distal pancreas.     

Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas

AIM:To compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumor(SPT)of the pancreas.METHODS:This retrospective study included 28 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for SPT of the pancreas between 1998 and 2012.The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach:the laparoscopic surgery group and the open surgery group.The patients’demographic data,operative results,pathological reports,hospital courses,morbidity and mortality,and follow-up data were compared between the two groups.RESULTS:Fifteen patients with SPT of the pancreas underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy(LDP),and 13 underwent open distal pancreatectomy(ODP).Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups except for a female predominance in the LDP group(100.0%vs 69.2%,P=0.035).Mortality,morbidity(33.3%vs 38.5%,P=1.000),pancreatic fistula rates(26.7%vs 30.8%,P=0.728),and reoperation rates(0.0%vs 7.7%,P=0.464)were similar in the two groups.There were no significant differences in the operating time(171 min vs 178 min,P=0.755)between the two groups.The intraoperative blood loss(149 mL vs 580 mL,P=0.002),transfusion requirement(6.7%vs 46.2%,P=0.029),first flatus time(1.9d vs 3.5 d,P=0.000),diet start time(2.3 d vs 4.9 d,P=0.000),and postoperative hospital stay(8.1 d vs 12.8d,P=0.029)were significantly less in the LDP group than in the ODP group.All patients had negative surgical margins at final pathology.There were no significant differences in number of lymph nodes harvested(4.6 vs6.4,P=0.549)between the two groups.The median follow-up was 33(3-100)mo for the LDP group and 45(17-127)mo for the ODP group.All patients were alive with one recurrence.CONCLUSION:LDP for SPT has short-term benefits compared with ODP.Long-term outcomes of LDP are similar to those of ODP.     

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Since the first report on laparoscopic distal pancreatec tomy(LDP) appeared in the 1990 s, the procedure ha been performed increasingly frequently to treat both benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Man earlier publications have shown LDP to be a good alter native to open distal pancreatectomy for benign lesions although this has never been studied in a prospective randomized manner. The evidence for the use of LDP to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is not as we established. The purpose of this review is to evaluat the current evidence for LDP in cases of pancreati adenocarcinoma. We conducted a review of English language publications reporting LDP results between1990 and 2013. All studies reporting results in patient with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinom were included. Thirty-nine publications were found and included in the results for a total of 309 cases of pan creatic adenocarcinoma(potential double publication were not eliminated). Most LDP procedures are per formed in selected cases and generally involve smalle tumors than open distal pancreatectomy(ODP) proce dures. Some of the papers report unselected cases andinclude procedures on larger tumors. The number of lymph nodes harvested using LDP is comparable to the number obtained with ODP, as is the frequency of R0 resections. Current data suggest that similar short term oncological results can be obtained using LDP as those obtained using ODP.     

Laparoscopic parenchyma‐sparing pancreatectomy

In recent years laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have developed rapidly, and reports of laparoscopic resection including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy have increased in number. On the other hand, many benign and low‐grade malignant pancreatic lesions have recently been detected by the improved diagnostic modalities. Parenchyma‐sparing pancreatectomy is a preferred surgical procedure for such benign and low‐malignancy pancreatic lesions, because parenchyma‐sparing pancreatectomy can avoid the unnecessary resection of the normal pancreatic parenchyma, thereby preserving the endocrine and exocrine functions of the pancreas. Simultaneously, laparoscopic surgery has contributed to minimally invasive approaches for various pancreatic surgical procedures. The combination of laparoscopic surgery and parenchyma‐sparing pancreatectomy is an ideal surgical procedure for benign and low‐grade malignant pancreatic lesions. For laparoscopic parenchyma‐sparing pancreatectomy to become more widely known and its indications clarified, it is necessary to demonstrate the clinical benefits, technical feasibility, and safety of this complex and difficult surgical procedure.     

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy(LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and shortterm oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy(MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.     

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: a meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed.RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid intake, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I² = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I² = 55.6%].CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP.     

Tips and tricks of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer can be a challenging procedure that requires adherence to surgical principles respecting tissue planes and critical vascular structures to obtain the optimal surgical margins and peripancreatic node harvest, while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. This report provides a basic approach with some tips and tricks based on my experience with this procedure.     

Perioperative management of distal pancreatectomy

Recent advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management have markedly reduced operative morbidity after distal pancreatectomy(DP).However,some questions remain regarding the protocol for the perioperative management of DP,in particular,with regard to the development of pancreatic fistula(PF).A review of DP was therefore conducted in order to standardize the management of patients for a favorable outcome.Overall,operative technique and perioperative management emerged as two critical factors contributing to favorable outcome in DP patients.As for the operative method,surgical and closure techniques exhibited differences in outcome.Laparoscopic DP generally yields more favorable perioperative outcomes compared to open DP,and is applicable for benign tumors and some ductal carcinomas of the pancreas.Robotic DP is also available for safe pancreatic surgery.En bloc celiac axis resection offers a high R0 resection rate and potentially allows for some local control in the case of advanced pancreatic cancer.Following resection,staple closure was not found to reduce the rate of PF when compared to hand-sewn closure.In addition,ultrasonic dissection devices,fibrin glue sealing,and staple closure with mesh reinforcement were shown to significantly reduce PF,although there was some bias in these studies.In perioperative management,both preoperative and postoperative treatment affected outcome.First,preoperative endoscopic pancreatic stenting may be an effective prophylactic measure against fistula development following DP in selected patients.Second,in postoperative management,a multifactorial approach including prophylactic antibiotics improved high surgical site infection rates following complex hepato-pancreatobiliary surgery.Furthermore,although conflicting results have been reported,somatostatin analogues should be administered selectively to patients considered to have a high risk for PF.Finally,careful drain management also facilitates a favorable outcome in patients with PF after DP.The results of the review indicate that laparoscopic DP coupled with perioperative management influences outcome in DP patients.     

Distal pancreatic resection: technical differences between open and laparoscopic approaches

Open distal pancreatic resection has been performed over the years for management of patients with a variety of pancreatic disorders. However, the technique is usually not performed in the same way by all surgeons. In recent years, the laparoscopic approach has been introduced with all the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure. The primary differences between the open and laparoscopic approaches are the method of access, the method of exposure, and the extent of operative trauma. The clinical advantages of the laparoscopic approach are the reduced length hospitalization, the reduction in postoperative pain, absence of wound-related complications and faster recovery.     

Duodenum-preserving total pancreatectomy for pancreatic neoplasms

Background/Purpose

Total pancreatectomy (TP) is sometimes performed to treat low-grade malignant neoplasms that are spreading to the entire pancreas. However, TP impairs quality of life, due to the resulting loss of pancreatic exocrine and endocrine function, and an organ-preserving procedure should be chosen to minimize the impact of pancreatic dysfunction. Recently, we performed four duodenum-preserving TPs (DPTPs) on patients with low-grade malignant neoplasms of the entire pancreas and we introduce our operative technique and results herein.

Methods

DPTP is performed with the objective of preserving the arterial arcade of the posterior pancreas so as to maintain good blood flow in the duodenum and common bile duct. Care must also be taken to preserve the splenic artery and vein to protect the spleen. When patients are also undergoing a bile duct resection, an end-to-side choledochoduodenostomy is also performed to reconstruct the biliary tract.

Results

Patient 1: DPTP with preservation of the spleen, conserving splenic vessels, was performed on a patient with hereditary pancreatic carcinoma with pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia-3 (PanIN-3). Patient 2: DPTP with splenectomy was performed on a patient with multiple metastases of the entire pancreas from renal cell carcinoma. Patient 3: DPTP with preservation of the common bile duct and the spleen, conserving splenic vessels, was performed on a patient with minimally invasive carcinoma derived from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Patient 4: DPTP with preservation of the spleen, conserving splenic vessels, was performed on a patient with minimally invasive carcinoma derived from IPMN. No deaths or morbidity occurred. All patients were placed on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy and given a daily dose of insulin of approximately 30 U. Complete professional rehabiliation was achieved in all patients. All patients except one gained weight, and the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels have been maintained at around 7%.

Conclusions

DPTP is a useful organ-preserving procedure for low-grade malignant neoplasms spreading within the entire pancreas. This procedure minimizes the impact of pancreatic dysfunction and allows the patient to maintain good nutrition after surgery.     

Survival impact of distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma

BackgroundThe survival benefit associated with distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of DP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma.MethodsMedical records of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 102) and DP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 32) between 2008 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsAll patients who underwent DP-CAR had tumor contact with the celiac axis. Of these, 30 patients underwent preoperative embolization of the common hepatic artery. The pretreatment tumor size of patients who underwent DP-CAR was larger (P < 0.001), and rates of blood transfusion (P = 0.003) and postoperative complications (P = 0.016) were higher in patients who underwent DP-CAR compared with patients who underwent DP. The 5-year survival rate of patients who underwent DP and DP-CAR were 50.6% and 41.1%, respectively (median survival time, 65.9 vs 37.0 months). For all 134 patients, pretreatment serum CA19-9 levels (P < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001), and lymph node status (P = 0.035) were independent prognostic factors of overall survival by multivariate analysis.ConclusionsDP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma may bring the same survival impact as DP, despite increased morbidity.     

Head dorsal pancreatectomy: An alternative to the pancreaticoduodenectomy for not enucleable benign or low-grade malignant lesions

BackgroundHead dorsal pancreatectomy (HDP) is a segmental pancreatic resection, conservative variant of total dorsal pancreatectomy, applied to preserve the functional pancreatic parenchyma as an alternative to pancreaticoduodenectomy in not enucleable benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The absences of biliary and gastrointestinal resection/reconstruction are the other advantages of the technique.MethodsWe reported a case of HDP performed in a female 39-year-old patient for a neuroendocrine tumour of the dorsal portion of the pancreatic head.ResultsThe superior mesenteric vein was dissected from the pancreatic neck. The pancreas was transected at the left margin of the superior mesenteric vein. After identification and mobilisation of gastroduodenal artery and the anterior superior pancreatico-duodenal artery, the head dorsal segment was dissected stepwise from the duodenal wall toward the common bile duct plane; the dissection of the pancreatic parenchyma was completed along the anterior surface of the common bile duct. An end-to-side duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy was performed. The main pancreatic duct in the ventral segment on the dissection parenchymal surface was ligated. With the inclusion of this case, there are a total of 3 cases involving resection of the dorsal portion of the pancreatic head reported in the literature.ConclusionHDP seems to be technically feasible and safe for not enucleable benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms involving the dorsal pancreatic head. However, due to the singularity of the indications and the few cases reported in the literature, further studies are needed to validate the technique.     

Division of the pancreas at the neck reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of pancreatic division at the body

Backgroundobjectives: During laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the optimal site for pancreatic division with consideration of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is unclear. We evaluate which site of pancreatic division, neck or body, has better outcomes after LDP.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study. LDP was performed in 102 consecutive patients between December 2009 and May 2020. After excluding 14 patients with pancreatic division at tail, 88 patients (pancreatic division at neck n = 46, at body n = 42) were included in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes after LDP were compared between pancreatic division at neck and body.ResultsThe pancreatic transection site was thicker at body than at neck (17.5 vs. 11.9 mm, P < 0.001), although there were no significant differences of pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size. The Grade B/C POPF rate was significantly higher when the pancreas was divided at body than when divided at neck (21.4 vs. 6.5%, P = 0.042). We found no significant differences between pancreatic division at neck and body in residual pancreatic volume (34.0 vs. 34.8 ml, P = 0.855), incidence of new-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus more than six months after LDP (P = 0.218), or body weight change (six-month: P = 0.116, one-year: P = 0.108, two-year: P = 0.195, tree-year: P = 0.131, four-year: P = 0.608, five-year: P = 0.408).ConclusionThis study suggests that the pancreatic division at neck might reduce the Grade B/C POPF incidence after LDP, compared to division at body. A potential reason is that the pancreas at body is thicker than that at neck. However, further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.     

Adult pancreatoblastoma: Current concepts in pathology

Adult pancreatoblastoma is an exceptionally rare malignant tumour of the pancreas that mimics other solid cellular neoplasms of the pancreas, which may pose diagnostic difficulties. Because of its rarity, little is known about its clinical and pathologic features. This article reviews the clinical and pathologic features of pancreatoblastoma in adults including differential diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Although pancreatoblastoma commonly occurs in childhood, there have now been more than 70 adult pancreatoblastomas described in the literature. There is a slight male predominance. There are no symptoms unique to pancreatoblastomas and adult patients are frequently symptomatic. The most common presenting symptom is abdominal pain. Grossly, the tumours are often large and well-circumscribed. Microscopically, pancreatoblastomas are composed of neoplastic cells with predominantly acinar differentiation and characteristic squamoid nests. These tumours are positive for trypsin, chymotrypsin, lipase, and BCL10. Loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11p is the most common molecular alteration in pancreatoblastomas. Adult pancreatoblastomas are aggressive tumours with frequent local invasion, recurrence, and distant metastasis. Treatment consists of surgical resection. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy may have a role in the treatment of recurrent, residual, unresectable, and metastatic disease. It is important to distinguish pancreatoblastomas from morphological mimics such as acinar cell carcinomas, solid pseudopapillary neoplasms, and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.