We sought to determine the significance of age and frailty in predicting peri-operative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

Data from our institution's prospectively collected robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy database was analyzed for the years 2018-2023. The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) was used as a concise stratification tool for frailty. Predictive models for composite adverse event (CAE) variable were created using adjusted logistic regressions.

116 patients underwent RPD. Mean age of this cohort was 70.65 years (±11.44). The mean operative time was 311.47 min (±71.35) and the estimated blood loss was 107.07 mL (±128.49). The most common postoperative complications included in the CAE were pancreatic leak (n = 10, 8.62 %), delayed gastric emptying (n = 10, 8.62 %), bleeding (n = 5, 4.31 %), and atrial fibrillation (n = 2, 1.72 %). The 90-day mortality was 1.72 %. There was a gradual increase in the odds ratio of CAE with increasing mFI-5 score: OR 1.52 (95 % CI 0.25-9.20) for mFI-5 score of 1 and OR 31.92 (95 % CI 1.79-570.09) for mFI-5 score of 4 compared to score of 0.

Preoperative mFI-5 score may serve as a risk stratification tool for RPDs.

Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.

This study evaluates the feasibility and safety of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) in patients aged ≥ 65, focusing on early surgical outcomes for benign and malignant gynecological conditions.

A total of 119 patients aged 65 and older who underwent vNOTES procedures at Valais Hospital from May 2020 to November 2024 were included. Data collected encompassed demographic characteristics, intraoperative details (e.g., complications, operative time), and postoperative outcomes (e.g., pain scores, complications, length of hospital stay).

The mean age was 72.5 years; 59.7 % underwent total hysterectomies, and 30.3 % had adnexal procedures. Mean operative time was 81.6 min (range: 15-221), and mean blood loss was 66.5 ml (range: 0-500). Conversion to conventional laparoscopy occurred in four cases (3.4 %). Intraoperative complications occurred in 14 cases (11.8 %), with higher rates in patients with BMI > 30 (p = 0.01). ASA III and IV patients experienced higher complications rates both intraoperatively (17.1 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.24) and postoperatively (28.6 % vs. 11.9 %, p = 0.03) compared to ASA I and II patients. Complication rates increased with surgical complexity, reaching 33.3 % for three or more concomitant procedures. The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days. Patients 75 years of age or older did not have significantly higher complication rates, operating times, or longer hospital stays.

Our study confirms the feasibility and safety of vNOTES in elderly patients. However, increased number of concomitant procedures seems to correlate with higher complication rates, especially in patients with a high ASA score and high BMI. These findings offer valuable data for preoperative discussions with elderly patients.

We sought to characterize the impact of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) on primary healthcare utilization and expenditures following partial pancreatectomy (PP).

Patients who underwent PP between 2004 and 2019 were identified using SEER-Medicare. Patients who developed EPI within 6 months following surgery were included in the EPI cohort and were followed for 1-year post-surgery. Differences in post-surgery PCP visit frequency and healthcare expenditures within 1-year were evaluated.

Among 1119 patients, median age was 74 years (IQR: 69-78), about one-half were female (52.5%), and the majority were White (85.2%). Following PP, 22.4% of patients developed EPI. Patients with EPI were more likely to be concomitantly diagnosed with diabetes following PP (EPI: 11.6% vs. no EPI: 3.7%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, EPI was associated with increased PCP visits (Ref. No EPI; percent difference [%diff]: 29.62, 95%CI 15.15-45.90) and higher healthcare costs (Ref. No EPI; total postoperative expenditure: %diff 37.01, 95%CI 12.89-66.29; p < 0.01) within 1-year following PP.

Roughly 1 in 4 patients experienced EPI after PP. EPI was associated with increased PCP utilization and higher healthcare expenditures.

Few studies compared laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Retrospective cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after chemoradiotherapy between 2012 and 2023 was analyzed. Open pancreatoduodenectomy patients could theoretically benefit from the laparoscopic approach. We used a 1:2 (laparoscopic-to-open pancreatoduodenectomy) propensity score matching analysis stratified on age, gender, and body mass index.

We included 128 patients (33 laparoscopic and 95 open pancreatoduodenectomy), and after propensity score matching, 33 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 66 open pancreatoduodenectomy were compared. There was no difference in demographic data except for lower tobacco use in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group (9% vs 30%, P = .023) with similar clinical presentation. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy showed a longer median operative duration (380 vs 255 minutes, P < .001), shorter median length of resected vein (15 vs 23 mm, P = .01), longer median venous clamping time (29 vs 15 minutes, P = .005), similar median blood loss (300 vs 300 mL, P = .223), similar rate of hard pancreas (97% vs 85%, P = .094), and a larger median size of Wirsung duct (5 vs 4 mm, P = .02). Postoperative outcomes showed similar 90-day mortality rates (3% vs 3%, P > .99), Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications (6% vs 14%, P = .158), median lengths of hospital stay (12 vs 13 days, P = .409), and readmission rates (9% vs 18%, P = .366). Pathologic data showed similar R0 resection rates (88% vs 82%, P = .568). With a similar rate of adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .324) and shorter median follow-up with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (18 vs 34 months, P = .004), 3-year overall (P = .768) and disease-free (P = .839) survival rates were similar.

In selected patients, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy appears to be safe and feasible when performed in experienced centers.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major public health concern, ranking as the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Traditional surgical approaches often yield suboptimal outcomes, highlighting the need for innovative surgical strategies. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) has demonstrated improvements in surgical visualization and oncological outcomes. Recently, laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) has been introduced as a minimally invasive alternative.

This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) versus L-RAMPS, focusing on operative outcomes, minimally invasive outcomes, intra-abdominal outcomes, overall postoperative outcomes, and oncologic outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing L-RAMPS with O-RAMPS. Data were extracted from EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases through September 16, 2023. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Statistical analyses included odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), mean differences (MD), and survival analyses.

Eight studies involving 588 patients were included. O-RAMPS was associated with longer operative times (MD = 39.39 minutes, 95% CI = 22.93 to 55.84) and greater blood loss (MD = -231.84 mL, 95% CI = -312.00 to -151.69). No significant differences were observed in blood transfusion rates, pancreatic fistula rates, delayed gastric emptying, or length of hospital stay. L-RAMPS demonstrated a shorter time to oral feeding (MD = -0.79 days, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.22). Survival analysis suggested a potentially improved long-term prognosis for L-RAMPS.

L-RAMPS offers advantages over O-RAMPS in terms of reduced blood loss, faster time to oral feeding, and potentially better long-term prognosis. Further research is warranted, particularly regarding the learning curve of L-RAMPS and its broader applicability.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42024498383.

Small mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) of the pancreas are managed with operative resection in otherwise healthy patients; however, postoperative diabetes development is not considered in recommendations for resection.

Via probabilistic microsimulation Markov modeling, we assessed clinical and economic implications of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus surveillance for non-diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with suspected MCN of 2 cm without high-risk or worrisome features. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), medical costs (2021 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of our model to changes in input parameters. All analyses were repeated for a population with pre-DM.

Surveillance resulted in 6.52 QALYs and $61,200, while LDP accumulated 6.12 QALYs and $63,700. Almost 20% of the LDP cohort developed DM over the first 10 years, compared with 11% of the surveillance cohort. In a pre-DM cohort, LDP remained dominated in the base case, with over 40% developing DM postoperatively. In sensitivity analyses, surveillance remained the preferred strategy in most iterations for both cohorts.

Surveillance for small suspected MCNs without high-risk features is the preferred strategy from a clinical and economic standpoint. Consensus guidelines should consider the long-term implications of postoperative diabetes development after LDP.

Pancreatic surgery often has a lengthy recovery in the elderly. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can decrease length of stay (LOS), but it is unknown if this benefit applies to octogenarians (Age > 79).

The NSQIP database was used to determine if MIS approaches were associated with reduced LOS among octogenarians undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple) or distal pancreatectomy (Distal). Operative approaches were classified as "Open" or "MIS" and propensity score (PS) matching was performed.

For the Whipple, 1665 Open and 101 MIS procedures occurred (median LOS 9, 8 days, p = 0.584). For Distal, 472 Open and 223 MIS procedures occurred (median LOS 6, 5 days, p < 0.01). After PS matching, there were 202 Whipple (101 per group) and 446 Distal (223 per group) patients. There was no difference in LOS by approach in the Whipple group (p = 0.546). The median LOS was 9 (IQR 7-15), Open and 8 (IQR 6-13), MIS. For Distal, there was a difference in LOS in the Open versus MIS approach (p < 0.01) and the median LOS was 6 (IQR 5-8) and 5 (IQR 4-6).

Among octogenarians the MIS approach was associated with decreased LOS in distal pancreatectomies, but not in pancreaticoduodenectomies.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy offers recognised benefits over open surgery. Robotic surgery, with its shorter learning curve and technical advancements, presents a promising alternative to laparoscopy in managing pancreatic diseases.

This study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between January 2013 and May 2022. After propensity score matching, perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between robotic and open procedures.

Among 79 patients analysed, 50 were eligible after matching. Both groups showed similar demographics, with 11% experiencing grade III-IV complications, and one patient died within 90 days after surgery. Robotic surgery exhibited longer operating times but allowed for earlier refeeding, drain removal, canalisation, and shorter hospital stays compared with open surgery. Spleen preservation rates, postoperative pancreatic fistula occurrences and survival were comparable between the groups.

Overall, robotic and open distal pancreatectomy demonstrated similar outcomes, with robotic surgery offering advantages in certain postoperative parameters despite longer operation times.

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas's unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.

Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, p = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, p = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, p = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.

This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome.

The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking.

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I 2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (-16.3%; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I 2 = 0%) and general surgery (-6.7%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I 2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I 2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision.

Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.

The introduction of laparoscopy in 1989 revolutionized surgical practices, reducing post-operative complications, and enhancing outcomes. Despite its benefits, limitations in laparoscopic tools have led to continued use of open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery emerged to address these limitations, but its adoption trends and potential impact on open and laparoscopic surgery require analysis.

A retrospective analysis used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases from 2012 to 2021. The study encompassed various abdominal procedures, employing Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models to analyze the dynamic relationships between surgical techniques. The models predicted future trends in open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery until Q2 of 2025.

The analysis included 360,171 patients across diverse procedures. In urology, robotic surgery dominated prostatectomies (83.1% in 2021) and nephrectomies (55.1% in 2021), while the open approach remained the predominant surgical technique for cystectomies (72.5% in 2021). In general surgery, robotic colectomies were forecasted to surpass laparoscopy, becoming the primary approach by 2024 (45.7% in 2025). Proctectomies also showed a shift towards robotic surgery, predicted to surpass laparoscopy and open surgery by 2025 (32.3%). Pancreatectomies witnessed a steady growth in robotic surgery, surpassing laparoscopy in 2021, with forecasts indicating further increase. While hepatectomies remained predominantly open (70.0% in 2025), esophagectomies saw a rise in robotic surgery, predicted to become the primary approach by 2025 (52.3%).

The study suggests a transformative shift towards robotic-assisted surgery, poised to dominate various minimally invasive procedures. The forecasts indicate that robotic surgery may surpass laparoscopy and open surgery in colectomies, proctectomies, pancreatectomies, and esophagectomies by 2025. This anticipated change emphasizes the need for proactive adjustments in surgical training programs to align with evolving surgical practices. The findings have substantial implications for future healthcare practices, necessitating a balance between traditional laparoscopy and the burgeoning role of robotic-assisted surgery.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas (SPNP) are rare tumors predominantly in young women. We report the largest single-center cohort study comparing resection of SPNP by laparoscopic approach (LA) and the open approach (OA).

Between 2001 and 2021, 102 patients (84% women, median age: 30) underwent pancreatectomy for SPNP and were retrospectively studied. Demographic, perioperative, pathological, early and the long-term results were evaluated between patients operated by LA and those by OA.

Population included 40 LA and 62 OA. There were no significant differences in demographics data between the groups. A preoperative biopsy by endoscopic ultrasound was performed in 45 patients (44%) with no difference between the groups. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was less frequently performed by LA (25 vs 53%, p = 0.004) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) was more frequently performed by LA (40 vs 16%, p = 0.003). In the subgroup analysis by surgical procedure, LA-PD was associated with one mortality, less median blood loss (180 vs 200 ml, p = 0.034) and fewer harvested lymph nodes (11 vs 15, p = 0.02). LA-DP was associated with smaller median tumor size on imaging (40 vs 80mm, p = 0.048), shorter surgery (135 vs 190 min, p = 0.028), and fewer complications according to the median comprehensive complication index score (0 vs 8.7, p = 0.048). LA-Central pancreatectomy was associated with shorter surgery (160 vs 240, p = 0.037), less median blood loss (60 vs 200, p = 0.043), and less harvested lymph nodes (5 vs 2, p = 0.025). After a median follow-up of 60 months, two recurrences (2%) were observed and were unrelated to the approach.

The LA for SPNP appears to be safe, should be applied cautiously in case of PD for large lesion, and was not associated with recurrence.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

The aim of this study was to compare the educational and academic quality of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) videos on YouTube® and WebSurg® platforms.

YouTube and WebSurg platforms were searched with the keyword "laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy". According to the exclusion criteria, 12 videos were found on WebSurg. To ensure a 1:1 ratio, the first 12 videos that met the criteria on YouTube were also analyzed. Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria were used to evaluate the reliability of the videos. The non-educational quality of the videos was calculated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the educational and academic quality of videos was calculated using Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy-specific score (LDP-SS) and Laparoscopic Surgery Video Educational Guidelines scoring system (LAP-VEGaS).

The mean JAMA score was 1.58 on YouTube and 2.83 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median GQS was 2 on YouTube and 5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LAP-VEGaS score was 8 on YouTube and 14.5 on WebSurg (P < .001). The median LDP-SS score was 6 on YouTube and 9.5 on WebSurg (P = .001). According to the LAP-VEGaS, eleven (91.7%) of the WebSurg videos had a high score of 11 or more (P = .04). According to Spearman correlation analysis, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between LDP-SS and JAMA, GQS and LAP-VEGaS (r: .589, P = .002; r: .648, P = .001; r: .848, P < .001 respectively).

The WebSurg is superior to the YouTube in terms of educational and academic value, quality, accuracy, reliability and usability in scientific meetings for LDP videos.

Utilization of minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has increased. While unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIDP is associated with inferior short-term outcomes, the long-term consequences of conversion have not been adequately examined.

Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing MIDP were selected from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) and subdivided based on the occurrence of unplanned conversion. Post-operative outcomes and overall survival (OS) were examined. Conversion was additionally compared to a matched group of planned open resections.

Among 592 patients undergoing attempted MIDP, unplanned conversion occurred in 23.1%. Despite increased 90-day mortality among patients experiencing conversion, there was no difference in median OS between groups (25.0 vs 27.8 months, p = 0.095). For patients undergoing conversion, post-operative outcomes and long-term survival were similar when compared to a propensity-matched group of patients undergoing planned open resection. On multivariable analysis, treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.63) and a robotic approach (OR 0.50) were both significantly associated with completed MIDP.

Despite inferior post-operative outcomes compared to successful MIDP, unplanned conversion did not result in significantly reduced long term survival. MIDP can be attempted selectively but treatment at experienced centers via a robotic approach should be considered.

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open sutures for peptic ulcer perforation (PPU).

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to March 31, 2023. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were also calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed using the Stata (V.16.0) software.

A total of 29 studies involving 17,228 patients were included in this study. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95%CI = -0.44 to -0.13, P = 0.00), less blood loss (MD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.82 to -0.08, P = 0.02), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.00), fewer pneumonia (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.01), fewer respiratory complications (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.55, P = 0.00) and lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.33 to 0.78, P = 0.00). The laparoscopic group had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.49, P = 0.00) than the open group. We also found that the laparoscopic group had a higher overall complication rate than the open group (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.34 to 0.60, P = 0.00).

Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of mortality than open repair in patients with PPU. Laparoscopic repair may be a better option in patients with PPU.

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes.

A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached.

A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days.

This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

Radical modular antegrade pancreaticosplenectomy (RAMPS) improves posterior tumor-free margins during resections of pancreatic neoplasia involving the body or tail. However, minimally invasive RAMPS is technically challenging and has been reported seldom. We present for the first time a minimally invasive RAMPS technique with an innovative approach providing early dissection and control of the main peripancreatic vessels from an inframesocolic embryonal window, suitable for laparoscopy and robotics. Minimally invasive RAMPS with inframesocolic main pancreatic vessels-first approach was performed at the Tricase Hospital (Italy) from May 2017 to April 2022 in 11 consecutive patients with neoplastic lesions of the pancreas (8 laparoscopic RAMPS and 3 robotic RAMPS). Among the laparoscopic cases, 1 included a portal vein tangential resection and 1 a celiac artery resection (modified Appleby procedure). There were no conversions, no Clavien-Dindo complications > 2, all resections' margins were tumor free, and no 90-day mortality.

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC.

Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups.

RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

A fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) has recently been applied in the management of chronic pancreatitis patients with pancreatic strictures. However, related long-term effects remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of FCSEMS placement in chronic pancreatitis patients with refractory strictures.

We retrospectively reviewed our database for patients undergoing FCSEMS placement for refractory pancreatic strictures between September 2008 and December 2010. The main outcomes were technical, radiological, and clinical success, as well as recurrence and adverse events.

A total of 35 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The median FCSEMS indwelling time was 3.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.0-4.9 months). Radiological success was achieved in all patients (complete, n = 2; partial, n = 33). Clinical success was achieved in 29 patients (82.9%; complete analgesic cessation, n = 19; analgesic reduction >50%, n = 11). During the median follow-up of 136 months, (IQR, 85.8-145.5 months), eight patients (22.9%) experienced recurrence. The median interval from stent removal to recurrence was 24.9 months (IQR, 11.3-30.3 months). Biliary obstruction, an early adverse event, occurred in two patients (5.7%); the late adverse event stent-induced de novo stricture was observed in 17 patients (48.6%).

Our findings suggest that an FCSEMS is effective for relieving refractory strictures in chronic pancreatitis. However, FCSEMSs were associated with stent-induced de novo strictures in nearly half of the patients. Prospective studies are required to further evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of FCSEMSs in chronic pancreatitis.

Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been accepted worldwide for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), it is a very technical and challenging procedure. Also, it is unclear whether LPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study summarized the experience and efficacy of LPD for treating PDA in our medical center.

This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDA admitted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University from October 2019 and January 2021. Patients received either LPD or OPD. Clinical outcomes (operation time, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative hemorrhage), postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes were compared. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Among the PDA patients, 101 patients underwent surgical treatment, 4 patients converted from LPD to OPD, and 7 of them received conservative treatment. Forty-six patients were cured of LPD, and 1 of them died shortly after the operation. Moreover, 44 patients received OPD, and there were 2 postoperative deaths. There were significant differences in the location of the operation time, duration of anesthesia, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal infections, and postoperative pneumonia between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LPD was an independent factor negatively correlated with the incidence of pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 0.072, 95%CI: 0.016-0.326, p = 0.001) and abdominal infection (RR = 0.182, 95%CI: 0.047-0.709, p = 0.014). Also, there were no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.60-3.53, p = 0.40) and PFS (HR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32, p = 0.37) at 12 months between the two groups.

LPD could be efficacy and feasible for managing selected PDA patients. Also, LPD has a better effect in reducing postoperative pneumonia and abdominal infection compared to OPD.

Increased human life expectancy, due in part to improvements in infant and childhood survival, more active lifestyles, in combination with higher patient expectations for better health outcomes, is leading to an extensive change in the number, type and manner in which health conditions are treated. Over the next decades as the global population rapidly progresses toward a super-aging society, meeting the long-term quality of care needs is forecast to present a major healthcare challenge. The goal is to ensure longer periods of good health, a sustained sense of well-being, with extended periods of activity, social engagement, and productivity. To accomplish these goals, multifunctionalized interfaces are an indispensable component of next generation medical technologies. The development of more sophisticated materials and devices as well as an improved understanding of human disease is forecast to revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of conditions ranging from osteoarthritis to Alzheimer's disease and will impact disease prevention. This review examines emerging cutting-edge bionic materials, devices and technologies developed to advance disease prevention, and medical care and treatment in our elderly population including developments in smart bandages, cochlear implants, and the increasing role of artificial intelligence and nanorobotics in medicine.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is gaining popularity due to improved perioperative outcomes over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of MIDP and ODP using patients within a nationwide cohort.

The American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (2014-2018) was used to evaluate incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as well as 30-day composite major morbidity for patients undergoing MIDP vs. ODP. Matching was performed with a Mahalanobis-distance model for demographic characteristics, preoperative risk factors, and benign versus malignant pathology. Outcomes were assessed via weighted multiple logistic regression.

A total of 3940 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (1978 MIDP, 1962 ODP). After matching, 2985 patients were included (1978 MIDP, 1007 ODP). The rates of major morbidity (8.65% MIDP vs. 9.76% ODP, p = 0.37) were similar between groups. The MIDP group was found to have significantly decreased length of stay (5.6 vs. 7 days, p ≤ 0.001), but greater rates (12.54% MIDP vs. 9.35% ODP, p = 0.02) of post-operative fistula.

When matched for baseline patient characteristics, MIDP was associated with shorter length of hospitalization with similar rates of morbidity compared to ODP. However, MIDP was associated with significantly increased rates of POPF. Further studies are needed to investigate this difference in POPF rate, and determine how to optimize MIDP surgical technique to reduce this risk.

Pancreatic cancer is a rare but fatal disease. Patients present advanced disease due to the lack of or typical symptoms when the tumor is still localized. A high-quality image processing system has been in practice to detect the pancreatic tumor and determine the possibility of surgery, and preoperative methods, such as ERCP are increasingly used to complement the staging modality. Pancreaticoduodenectomy is one of the complicated surgeries with potential morbidity. The minimally invasive pancreatic resections, both robot-assisted and laparoscopic, have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade. Moreover, advancements in adjuvant chemotherapy have improved the long-term outcomes in current clinical practice. The systemic conservative treatment, including targeted agents, remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with advanced disease. An increasing number of studies are focused on modulating the pancreatic tumor microenvironment to improve the efficacy of the immunotherapeutic strategies. Herein, the role of preoperative therapy, the novel surgical strategy, and individualized systemic treatment in pancreatic cancer is investigated. Also, the randomized controlled studies that have defined the neoadjuvant and surgical management of pancreatic cancer have been summarized.

Pancreatic resection has higher postoperative mortality and morbidity rates than other abdominal operations. Some centers have reported remarkable postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery. This study investigated the chronological trends of pancreatectomies by analyzing a large-scale database.

The medical records of 5175 patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 1961 and 2019 at a single institution were reviewed. To investigate the chronological change in survival outcomes of periampullary cancer, the survival data of 3,108 patients were analyzed.

Patient age and the proportion with pancreatic cancer have increased over time. From 2015 to 2019, pancreatic cancer was the most common cause for resection (35.9%), followed by pancreatic cysts (24.8%) and common bile duct cancer (13.4%). The incidence of postoperative complications tended to decrease over time (26.0% from 2000 to 2004; 20.8% from 2015 to 2019). A comparison of survival outcomes of periampullary malignancies by period revealed that patients with pancreatic cancer significantly improved (5-year survival rate: 14.4% before 2000% vs 15.2% from 2000 to 2009% vs 29.0% after 2009, P < .001).

Postoperative outcomes of pancreatic resection have improved over the past few decades. To improve outcomes in the future, an active multidisciplinary approach and postoperative management are required.

There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC.

The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS.

The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P<0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P>0.05).

For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival.

Limited contemporary data has compared similarities and differences between total laparoscopic (LDP), hand-assisted (HALDP), and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in outcomes between these three approaches in a contemporary cohort. Methods: Patients undergoing elective LDP, HALDP, and ODP in the NSQIP dataset (2014−2019) were included. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were employed to compare postoperative outcomes. Results: Among 5636 patients, 33.9% underwent LDP, 13.1% HALDP, and 52.9% ODP. Compared with the LDP approach, surgical site infections were more frequent in HALDP and ODP approaches (1.2% vs. 2.6% vs. 2.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). After adjustment, the LDP approach was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of surgical site infection (OR 0.25, p = 0.03) when compared to ODP. There was no difference in the likelihood of surgical site infection when HALDP was compared to ODP (OR 0.59, p = 0.40). Unadjusted operative times were similar between approaches (LDP = 192 min, HALDP = 193 min, ODP = 191 min, p = 0.59). After adjustment, the LDP approach had a longer operative time (+10.3 min, p = 0.04) compared to ODP. There was no difference in the adjusted operative time between HALDP and ODP approaches (+5.4 min, p = 0.80). Conclusions: Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with improved surgical site infection rates and slightly longer operative times. There was no difference in surgical site infection rates between ODP and HALDP. Surgeon comfort and experience should decide the operative approach, but it is important to discuss the differences between these approaches with patients.

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

There is no consensus on the superiority of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Data of patients undergoing RDP and LDP were prospectively collected and compared.

There were 65 RDP and 112 LDP. RDP took a shorter operation time than LDP. Overall, DP with splenectomy took a longer operation time than that with spleen preservation. This difference was only significant in LDP group. In both RDP and LDP groups, splenectomy was associated with increased blood loss, as compared with spleen preservation. No significant differences were observed in surgical morbidity between RDP and LDP. The hospital cost in RDP was almost double that of LDP, with a median of 13,404 versus 7765 USD.

LDP is comparable to RDP in regard to surgical outcomes. LDP with spleen preservation is highly recommended whenever possible and feasible for benign or low malignant lesions in terms of lower costs and less blood loss.