Search

Background: Many mini-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) techniques have been reported, but their advantages with respect to an open technique (OPD) and with respect to each other are unclear., Method: A systematic literature search of studies comparing different types of MIPD was carried out: laparoscopic-assisted (LAPD), totally robotic (TRPD), totally laparoscopic (TLPD) or totally laparoscopic-robotic assisted (TLPD-RA) to OPD. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. The secondary endpoints were intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. A network meta-analysis was designed to generate direct, indirect and mixed estimate effects, between different approaches, for each variable. The effects were reported as pairwise comparisons and hierarchical ranking as to each approach could be the best or the worst for each outcome, expressed by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve., Results: Twenty studies were identified, involving 2759 patients: 1813 OPDs, 81 LAPDs, 505 TRPDs, 224 TLPDs and 136 TLPD-RAs. No differences regarding postoperative mortality were found in pairwise comparison. The LAPD technique had a high probability of being the worst approach, while TRPD had a high probability of being one of the best. Regarding the secondary endpoints, OPD was the best regarding operative time and postoperative bleeding, but the worst regarding blood loss and wound infection. The TRPD or TLPD-RA techniques seemed to be the best for delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay, harvested lymph nodes and postoperative morbidity. The TLPD technique was often the worst approach, especially for overall and major complications, postoperative bleeding and biliary leak., Conclusion: The safest MIPDs are those involving a robotic system which seems to have a promising role in ameliorating the outcomes of OPD, especially when compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Background: R status represents an important prognostic factors in periampullary cancers. Thus, it is useful to verify if it can be influenced by different techniques of margination., Methods: Single-centre, randomised clinical trial of patients affected by periampullary cancer who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies which included two different types of margination: arm A (multicolour inking) and arm B (monocolour inking). The primary endpoint was the overall R1 resection rate and its difference between the two arms. The secondary endpoints were the R1 resection rate in each margin and its difference between the two arms, and the impact of margin status on survival., Results: Fifty patients were randomised, 41 analysed: 22 in arm A, 19 arm B. The overall R1 status was 61%, without significant differences between the two arms. The margin most commonly involved was the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) (36.6%). A trend in favour of arm B was shown for the superior mesenteric artery margin (arm A = 22.7% versus arm B = 52.6%; P = 0.060). The anterior surface (P = 0.015), SMA (P = 0.047) and pancreatic remnant (P = 0.018) margins significantly influenced disease-free survival., Conclusions: The R status was not influenced by different techniques of margination using a standardised pathological protocol. The SMA margin seemed to be the most important margin for evaluating both R status and disease-free survival., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: In 2015, basing on objective preoperative factors related to pancreas remnant texture (body mass index, Wirsung duct size and preoperative diagnosis), we proposed a score model to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after partial pancreatectomies. The aim of the present study was to prospectively validate this preoperative predictive risk score for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy., Methods: Prospective study of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in which a preoperative risk score, based on factors related to the pancreatic texture, was calculated. The risk score model was tested by comparison with subjective intraoperative assessment of the pancreas remnant texture and drain amylase value on postoperative day 1. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio and area under the curve were calculated., Results: Eighty-four patients who underwent pancreaticoduodnectomy were analyzed. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas rate was 40.6%. The risk score model with a cut-off of 6 increased the odds of pancreatic fistula approximately 3 fold but it was not independently related to it. On the contrary, considering a cut-off of 5, the risk score model increased the odds of pancreatic fistula 11-16 fold and it was independently related to it. The new risk score model and pancreatic texture had high sensitivity (97% and 88%, respectively) and low specificity (34% and 60%, respectively) while the amylase drain value had low sensitivity (44%) and high specificity (92%)., Conclusions: The preoperative risk score model with a cut-off of 5 was a useful predictor of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The drain amylase value represents a complementary factor to the risk score in predicting a pancreatic fistula., (Copyright © 2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the clinically relevant POPF rate between Pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). To evaluate the confounding factors affecting meta-analytic results., Methods: A systematic literature search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PG to PJ with an International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat or harm (NNT and NNH) were used. Fixed and random-effect models were applied. Impact of confounding covariates on the meta-analytic results was evaluated using meta-regression analysis, reporting β coefficient ± standard error (SE)., Results: Seven RCTs were identified involving 1184 patients: 603 PG and 581 PJ. RD in the fixed model of clinically relevant POPFs suggested that PG was superior to PJ (RD-0.07; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.03) with an NNT of 14 (95% CI: 9 to 33). In random model, PG was not superior to PJ (RD-0.06; 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.01) with an NNT of 17 and a possibility of harm in some cases (NNH = 100). Meta-regression suggested that the increase in the proportion of "soft pancreas" in the PG arm corresponded to a more positive value of RD (β = 0.47 ± 0.19; P value: 0.045 ± 0.003)., Conclusion: A PG could be slightly superior to PJ in the prevention of clinically relevant POPF. The presence of high risk pancreatic remnant remains the main limitation of PG., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Total pancreatectomy is actually considered a viable option in selected patients even if large comparative studies between partial versus total pancreatectomy are not currently available. Our aim was to evaluate whether total pancreatectomy can be considered as feasible, safe, efficacious, and cost-effective as pancreaticoduodenectomy., Methods: A single center, prospective, observational trial, regarding postoperative outcomes, long-term results, and cost-effectiveness, in a tertiary referral center was conducted, comparing consecutive patients who underwent elective total pancreatectomy and/or pancreaticoduodenectomy., Results: Seventy-three consecutive elective total pancreatectomies and 184 pancreaticoduodenectomies were compared. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative outcomes and overall survival. The quality of life, evaluated in 119 patients according to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, showed that there were no significant differences regarding the five items considered. The mean EQ-5D-5L score was similar in the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.872, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.832, range 0.393-1.000; P = 0.320). The impact of diabetes according to the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire did not show any significant differences except for question 13 (total pancreatectomy = 0.60; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.19; P = 0.022). The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the quality-adjusted life year was not significantly different between the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.910, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.910, range -0.393-1.000; P = 0.320)., Conclusions: From this study, it seems reasonable to suggest that total pancreatectomy can be considered as safe, feasible, and efficacious as PD and acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of age after pancreaticoduodenectomy. This is a retrospective study of 223 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary diseases. Three age groups of patients were compared: ≤70 years of age (group A); between 71 and 79 years of age (group B) and 80 years of age or older (group C). The primary endpoint was the postoperative mortality rate. Secondary endpoints were the overall postoperative morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative pancreatic haemorrhage, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying rates, the length of hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, the type of discharge from hospital, reoperation rate and overall survival. Uni-multivariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier curve were carried out. At univariate analysis, only the type of discharge from hospital showed that group B and C patients required a period of rehabilitation more frequently than group A (P = 0.047 and P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that age was not related to postoperative mortality (P = 0.258), morbidity (P = 0.912) and overall survival (P = 0.658), but it was related to type of discharge (P < 0.001). The present study seems to suggest that a pancreaticoduodenectomy is a feasible and safe procedure, even in elderly and very elderly patients even if the latter require a longer period of rehabilitation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of pancreatic resections in patients 80 years or older., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was carried out that compared perioperative outcomes after pancreatic resection in patients 80 years or older with patients younger than 80 years. The primary end points were postoperative mortality and morbidity. The secondary end points were incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, bile leak, pneumonia, postoperative infection, cardiologic complications, reoperation, and length of hospital stay., Results: Nine studies were found to be suitable for the meta-analysis. The postoperative mortality and morbidity were significantly higher in the group 80 years or older (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.003, respectively) except for patients in whom there were no differences in preoperative comorbidities (P = 0.56 and P = 0.36, respectively). Postoperative cardiac complications were significantly more frequent in patients 80 years or older (P < 0.0001), and the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in octogenarian patients (P = 0.008)., Conclusions: Patients 80 years or older have an increased incidence of postoperative mortality, morbidity, and cardiac complications and a longer length of hospital stay than do younger patients. Thus, pancreatic resection can be recommended only in a selected group of patients 80 years or older.