Search

Background: The debate of whether to centralize hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery has been ongoing. The principal objective was to compare outcomes of a community pancreatic surgical program with those of high-volume academic centers. Methods: The current pancreatic surgical study occurred in an environment where (1) a certified abdominal transplant surgeon performed all surgeries; (2) complementary quality enhancement programs had been developed; (3) the hospital's trauma center had been verified; and (4) the hospital's surgical training had been accredited. Pancreatic surgical outcomes at high-volume academic centers were obtained through PubMed literature searches. Articles were selected if they described diverse surgical procedures. Two-tailed Fisher exact and mid-P tests were used to perform 2 × 2 contingency analyses. Results: The study patients consisted of 64 consecutive pancreatic surgical patients. The study patients had a similar pancreaticoduodenectomy proportion (59.4%) when compared to literature patients (66.8%; P = 0.227). The study patients also had a similar distal pancreatectomy proportion (25.0%) when compared to literature patients (31.9%; P = 0.276). The study patients had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3 proportion (100%) than literature patients (28.1%; P < 0.001). The 90-day study mortality proportion (0%) was similar to the literature proportion (2.3%; P = 0.397). The study postoperative pancreatic fistula proportion was lower (3.2%), when compared to the literature proportion (18.4%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 5.8). The study patients had a lower reoperation proportion (3.1%) than the literature proportion (8.7%; mid-P = 0.051; risk ratio = 2.8). The study patients had a lower surgical site infection proportion (3.1%) than those in the literature (21.1%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 6.8). The study patients had equivalent delayed gastric emptying (15.6%) when compared to literature patients (10.6%; P = 0.216). The study patients had decreased Clavien–Dindo grades III–IV complications (10.9%) compared to the literature patients (21.8%; mid-P = 0.018). Lastly, the study patients had a similar readmission proportion (20.3%) compared to literature patients (18.4%; P = 0.732). Conclusion: Despite pancreatic surgical patients having greater preoperative medical comorbidities, the current community study outcomes were comparable to or better than high-volume academic center results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Presently, the worldwide experience with robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is increasing although widespread adoption remains limited. In this study, we report our initial experience with RPS. Methods: This is a retrospective review of a single institution prospective database of 72 consecutive robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries performed between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 30 patients who underwent RPS were included in this study of which 25 were performed by a single surgeon. Results: The most common procedure was robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) which was performed in 20 patients. This included eight subtotal pancreatectomies, two extended pancreatecto‐splenectomies (en bloc gastric resection) and 10 spleen‐saving‐RDP. Splenic preservation was successful in 10/11 attempted spleen‐saving‐RDP. Eight patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (five hybrid with open reconstruction), one patient underwent a modified Puestow procedure and one enucleation of uncinate tumour. Four patients had extended resections including two RDP with gastric resection and two pancreaticoduodenectomies with vascular resection. There was one (3.3%) open conversion and seven (23.3%) major (>Grade II) morbidities. Overall, there were four (13.3%) clinically significant (Grade B) pancreatic fistulas of which three required percutaneous drainage. These occurred after three RDP and one robotic enucleation. There was one reoperation for port‐site hernia and no 30‐day/in‐hospital mortalities. The median post‐operative stay was 6.5 (range: 3–36) days and there were six (20%) 30‐day readmissions. Conclusion: Our initial experience showed that RPS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for a wide variety of procedures including pancreaticoduodenectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Different techniques of pancreatic anastomosis have been described, with inconclusive results in terms of pancreatic fistula reduction. Studies comparing robotic pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) are scarcely reported. Methods: The present study analyzes the outcomes of two case-matched groups of patients who underwent PG (n = 20) or PJ (n = 40) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The primary aim was to compare the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula. Results: Operative time (375 vs. 315 min, p = 0.34), estimated blood loss (270 vs. 295 mL, p = 0.44), and rate of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (12.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.82) were similar between the two groups. PJ was associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal collections (7.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but lower post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (2.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). PG was associated with a lower rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (33.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.003) in the high-risk group of patients. Conclusions: The outcomes of post-operative pancreatic fistula are comparable between the two reconstruction techniques. PG may have a lower incidence of POPF in patients with high-risk of pancreatic fistula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]