Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2):study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.</p

Evidence for diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis after three episodes of acute pancreatitis : a cross-sectional multicentre international study with experimental animal model

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an end-stage disease with no specific therapy; therefore, an early diagnosis is of crucial importance. In this study, data from 1315 and 318 patients were analysed from acute pancreatitis (AP) and CP registries, respectively. The population from the AP registry was divided into AP (n=983), recurrent AP (RAP, n=270) and CP (n=62) groups. The prevalence of CP in combination with AP, RAP2, RAP3, RAP4 and RAP5+was 0%, 1%, 16%, 50% and 47%, respectively, suggesting that three or more episodes of AP is a strong risk factor for CP. Laboratory, imaging and clinical biomarkers highlighted that patients with RAP3+do not show a significant difference between RAPs and CP. Data from CP registries showed 98% of patients had at least one AP and the average number of episodes was four. We mimicked the human RAPs in a mouse model and found that three or more episodes of AP cause early chronic-like morphological changes in the pancreas. We concluded that three or more attacks of AP with no morphological changes to the pancreas could be considered as early CP (ECP).The new diagnostic criteria for ECP allow the majority of CP patients to be diagnosed earlier. They can be used in hospitals with no additional costs in healthcare.Peer reviewe

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy:a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P &lt; .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P &lt; .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P &lt; .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P &lt; .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P &lt; .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy:a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P &lt; .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P &lt; .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P &lt; .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P &lt; .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P &lt; .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences