A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status.

BACKGROUND: No study has shown the oncologic non-inferiority of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: This is a single institution propensity score matched study comparing RPD and ODP for resectable PC, based on factors predictive of R1 resection (≤ 1 mm). Only patients operated on after completion of the learning curve in both procedures and for whom circumferential margins were assessed according to the Leeds pathology protocol were included. The primary study endpoint was the rate of R1 resection. Secondary study endpoints were as follows: number of examined lymph nodes (N), rate of perioperative transfusions, percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapies, occurrence of local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT). RESULTS: Factors associated with R1 resection were tumor diameter, number of positive N, N ratio, logarithm odds of positive N, and duodenal infiltration. The matching process identified 20 RPDs and 24 OPDs. All RPDs were completed robotically. R1 resection was identified in 11 RPDs (55.0%) and in 10 OPDs (41.7%) (p = 0.38). There was no difference in the rate of R1 at each margin as well as in the proportion of patients with multiple R1 margins. RPD and OPD were also equivalent with respect to all secondary study endpoints, with a trend towards lower rate of blood transfusions in RPD. Based on the figures presented herein, a non-inferiority RCT comparing RPD and OPD having the rate of R1 resection as the primary study endpoint requires 3355 pairs. CONCLUSIONS: RPD and OPD achieved the same rate of R1 resections in resectable PC. RPD was also non-inferior to OPD with respect to all secondary study endpoints. Because of the high number of patients required to run a RCT, further assessment of RPD for PC would require the implementation of an international registry.

Incidence and reasons of pancreatic resection in patients with asymptomatic serous cystadenoma.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Despite diagnostic refinements, pancreatic resection (PR) is eventually performed in some patients with asymptomatic serous cystadenoma (A-SCA). The aim of this study was to define incidence and reasons of PR in A-SCA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed for all the patients referred for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) between January 2005 and March 2016. RESULTS: Overall, there were 1488 patients with PCL, including 1271 (85.4%) with incidental PCL (I-PCL). During the study period referral of I-PCL increased 8.5-fold. Surgery was immediately advised in 94 I-PCL (7.3%) and became necessary later on in 11 additional patients (0.9%), because of the development of symptoms. Overall, PR was performed in 105/1271 patients presenting with I-PCL (8.2%), including 27 with A-SCA (2.1%). All patients with A-SCA underwent ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 21 patients (77.8%), 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography in 8 (29.6%), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in 2 (7.4%), and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in 1 (3.7%). These studies demonstrated a combination of atypical features such as solid tumor (3; 11.1%), oligo-/macrocystic tumor (24; 88.8%), mural nodules (14; 51.8%), enhancing cyst walls (17; 62.9%), dilation of the main pancreatic duct (3; 11.1%), and upstream pancreatic atrophy (1; 3.7%). Additionally, 14/27 patients (51.8%) were females with oligo-/macrocystic tumors located in the body-tail of the pancreas. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with A-SCA entails a small risk of PR especially when these tumors demonstrate atypical radiologic features associated with confounding anatomic and demographic characteristics.

PTFE Graft as a "Bridge" to Communicating Veins Maturation in the Treatment of an Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Involving the 3 Hepatic Veins. The Minor-but-Complex Liver Resection.

BACKGROUND: Parenchyma-sparing liver surgery allows resecting hepatic veins (HV) at the hepatocaval confluence with minor (<3 adjacent segments) liver resections. PTFE graft can be used as a bridge to communicating-veins maturation to ensure the correct outflow of the spared liver. We present a video of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IC) involving the three HV at the hepatocaval confluence treated with this approach. METHODS: In a 50-year old obese (BMI 44.8) male a 6-cm IC involving the hepatocaval confluence was identified during the follow-up for a kidney malignancy. At the preoperative CT scan the left HV was not detectable, the middle HV was incorporated within the tumor, and right HV had a 3-cm contact with the tumor. No communicating veins were evident at preoperative imaging. RESULTS: After a J-shape thoracophrenolaparotomy, the resection of segments II-III-IVa was partially extended to segment VIII-VII and I. The right HV was detached from the tumor, and the middle HV was reconstructed with a 7-mm ringed-armed PTFE graft anastomosed to V8. Surgery lasted 20 h and 55 min with an estimated blood loss of 3500 ml, but the postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the 14th postoperative day. One month later the CT scan showed a patent PTFE graft with the maturation of communicating-veins. One year later a complete thrombosis of the PTFE graft was observed with normal liver perfusion and function, and the patient was disease-free. CONCLUSIONS: PTFE-based parenchyma-sparing liver resection is a new tool to treat tumors located at the hepatocaval confluence exploiting the maturation of intrahepatic communicating-veins between main HV.