Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: real-world data from the italian national registry of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Aim: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become the standard of care for benign and low malignant lesions. Spleen preservation in this setting has been proposed to reduce surgical trauma and long-term sequelae. The aim of the current study is to present real-world data on indications, techniques, and outcomes of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP). Methods: Patients who underwent SPDP and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPWS) were extracted from the 2019-2022 Italian National Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (IGoMIPS). Perioperative and pathological data were collected. Results: One hundred and ten patients underwent SPDP and five hundred and seventy-eight underwent DPWS. Patients undergoing SPDP were significantly younger (56 vs. 63.5 years; P < 0.001). Seventy-six percent of SPDP cases were performed in six out of thirty-four IGoMIPS centers. SPDP was performed predominantly for Neuroendocrine Tumors (43.6% vs.23.5%; P < 0.001) and for smaller lesions (T1 57.6% vs. 29.8%; P < 0.001). The conversion rate was higher in the case of DPWS (7.6% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.006), even when pancreatic cancer was ruled out (5.0% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.045). The robotic approach was most commonly used for SPDP (50.9% vs. 29.7%; P < 0.001). No difference in postoperative outcomes and length of stay was observed between the two groups, as well as between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in the SPDP group. A trend toward a lower rate of postoperative sepsis was observed after SPDP (0.9% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.056). In 84.7% of SPDP, splenic vessels were preserved (Kimura procedure) without an impact on short-term postoperative outcomes. Conclusion: In this registry analysis, SPDP was feasible and safe. The Kimura procedure was prevalent over the Warshaw procedure. The typical patient undergoing SPDP was young with a neuroendocrine tumor at an early stage. Robotic assistance was used more frequently for SPDP than for DPWS

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

IMPORTANCE Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.EXPOSURES The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The learning curvewas assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.RESULTS From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validate guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking.METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to non-surgical guidelines.RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive mean to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ).CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR- and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.</p

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validate guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking.METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to non-surgical guidelines.RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive mean to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ).CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR- and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

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

Complexity and Experience Grading to Guide Patient Selection for Minimally-invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: An ISGPS Consensus.

ObjectiveThe ISGPS aims to develop a universally accepted complexity and experience grading system to guide the safe implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).BackgroundDespite the perceived advantages of MIPD, its global adoption has been slow due to the inherent complexity of the procedure and challenges to acquiring surgical experience. Its wider adoption must be undertaken with an emphasis towards appropriate patient selection according to adequate surgeon and center experience.MethodsThe ISGPS developed a complexity and experience grading system to guide patient selection for MIPD based on an evidence-based review and a series of discussions.ResultsThe ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for MIPD is subclassified into patient-related risk factors and provider experience-related variables. The patient-related risk factors include anatomical (main pancreatic and common bile duct diameters), tumor-specific (vascular contact), and conditional (obesity and previous complicated upper abdominal surgery/disease) factors, all incorporated in an A-B-C classification, graded as no, a single, and multiple risk factors. The surgeon and center experience-related variables include surgeon total MIPD experience (cut-offs 40 and 80) and center annual MIPD volume (cut-offs 10 and 30), all also incorporated in an A-B-C classification.ConclusionThis ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for robotic and laparoscopic MIPD may enable surgeons to optimally select patients after duly considering specific risk factors known to influence the complexity of the procedure. This grading system will likely allow for a thoughtful and stepwise implementation of MIPD and facilitate a fair comparison of outcome between centers and countries