"Parenchyma transection-first" strategy is superior to "tunnel-first" strategy in robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of splenic vessels.

BACKGROUND: Creating a tunnel between the pancreas and splenic vessels followed by pancreatic parenchyma transection ("tunnel-first" strategy) has long been used in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with splenic vessel preservation (Kimura's procedure). However, the operation space is limited in the tunnel, leading to the risks of bleeding and difficulties in suturing. We adopted the pancreatic "parenchyma transection-first" strategy to optimize Kimura's procedure. METHODS: The clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent robotic SPDP with Kimura's procedure between January 2017 and September 2022 at our center were retrieved. The cohort was classified into a "parenchyma transection-first" strategy (P-F) group and a "tunnel-first" strategy (T-F) group and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients were enrolled in this cohort, with 49 in the T-F group and 42 in the P-F group. Compared with the T-F group, the P-F group had significantly shorter operative time (146.1 ± 39.2 min vs. 174.9 ± 46.6 min, P < 0.01) and lower estimated blood loss [40.0 (20.0-55.0) mL vs. 50.0 (20.0-100.0) mL, P = 0.03]. Failure of splenic vessel preservation occurred in 10.2% patients in the T-F group and 2.4% in the P-F group (P = 0.14). The grade 3/4 complications were similar between the two groups (P = 0.57). No differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal infection or hemorrhage were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The pancreatic "parenchyma transection-first" strategy is safe and feasible compared with traditional "tunnel-first strategy" in SPDP with Kimura's procedure.

Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: a single-center experience in China.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is beneficial for pancreatic surgery, and the indication has been expanded to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study was to share our experiences with hybrid PD in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. METHODS: Sixty-four patients underwent hybrid PD in which specimen resection and gastrojejunostomy were performed through the laparoscopic route and pancreatojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy were performed via a robotic approach by the same surgeon at a single institution between July 2016 and June 2019. The primary endpoint was complications; secondary endpoints were operative time (OT), the length of hospital stay, and blood loss. The data for the patients were retrospectively obtained from electrical medical records. RESULTS: All patients underwent surgery with the hybrid procedure. The mean OTs and estimated blood loss (EBL) were 309.7 ± 77.6 min (range 17-620 min), 160 ± 31.7 mL (range 50-800 mL). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 7.3 ± 6.7 (range 0-37), and that among 45 malignant cases was 8.42 ± 6.7 (range 1-37). The average length of postoperative stay in the hospital was 11.14 ± 7.03 days (range 6-47 days). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) occurred in 39 (60.9%) cases, and most were biochemical leak POPF (29 cases, 45.3%); only 10 (15.6%) cases were grade B/C (8 cases were Grade B and 2 cases were Grade C treated with digital subtraction angiography). Bile leakage occurred in 2 (3.1%) patients. One (1.5%) patient had a gastric fistula, and 3 (4.7%) developed postoperative delayed gastric emptying categorized as International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade A. Three (4.7%) patients were readmitted for postoperative bleeding, and 2 (3.1%) died within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Hybrid PD with laparoscopic and robot surgery is safe and feasible. OT can be reduced by switching from the laparoscopic approach to the robotic procedure at the appropriate timepoint.

Lithotomy using cholangioscopy via the left hepatic duct orifice versus the common bile duct in laparoscopic treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is widely used in the surgical treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis (LSH). Lithotomy using a cholangioscope usually is required for the treatment of concurrent right-sided hepatolithiasis or choledocholithiasis. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gallstone elimination using cholangioscopy through the left hepatic duct (LHD) orifice versus the common bile duct (CBD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible LSH patients (n=41) were scheduled for laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy or left hemihepatectomy with intraoperative biliary exploration using cholangioscopy through the LHD orifice (LHD group, n=23) or the CBD (CBD group, n=18) at the discretion of patients. Laparoscopic T-tube insertion was performed in selected patients. Patients were regularly followed up at monthly intervals or more frequently in the presence of any symptom. The primary outcome measures included overall operative time, duration of the cholangioscopy procedure, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and frequency of procedure-related complications. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in sex, age, symptoms, site of lesion, and gallstone comorbidities (P>.05). Of the 18 patients in the CBD group, 12 (66.7%) patients had a T-tube inserted in contrast to 1 (4.5%) patient in the LHD group. The two groups were comparable in cholangioscopy duration and volume of blood loss (P>.05), whereas the LHD group had a significantly shorter operative time than the CBD group (221.4 ± 58.6 minutes versus 171.2 ± 63.5 minutes; P<.05). The postoperative duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LHD group than in the CBD group (7.5 ± 2.2 days versus 4.2 ± 1.9 days; P<.05). No patient showed any recurrence of gallstones or cholangitis during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: As an effective and safe technique that is comparable to choledochotomy, LHD cholangioscopy is a preferred alternative to choledochotomy in the laparoscopic treatment of LSH because it offers patients shorter operative duration and length of hospitalization.

Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic procedure for synchronous radical resection of liver metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) along with synchronous liver metastases has been attempted and reported in multiple single series. In this study, we aimed to examine the feasibility, procedural safety, and oncological integrity of 1-stage totally laparoscopic procedure for the radical resection of liver metastatic CRC in a head-to-head comparison with the 1-stage open procedure simultaneously. METHODS: The patients who underwent selective 1-stage concomitant resection of CRC and synchronous liver metastases between January 2004 and December 2008 (laparoscopy group, n=13) were retrospectively enrolled in the study. Patients receiving open 1-stage resection (laparotomy group) were retrospectively included at the ratio of 1:1 (n=13 out of 71), matching the laparoscopy group in sex, age, body mass index, site and stage of primary tumor, location and size of liver metastases, and adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: All the thirteen 1-stage laparoscopic procedures were successfully completed, without conversion to open procedure or additional incision. The operative duration of laparoscopic procedure was shorter than that of open procedure (313 ± 44 vs. 350 ± 46 min, P<0.05). The volume of blood loss was comparable between the 2 groups (259 ± 111 vs. 273 ± 95 mL, P>0.05). Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedure resumed off-bed activities, bowel movement, and oral intake earlier than those undergoing open procedure, and also had a shorter hospitalization stay (8.5 ± 1.9 vs. 11.2 ± 1.8 d, P<0.05). Only 1 clinically significant adverse event occurred in a patient who developed bile leak after the laparoscopic resection. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage synchronous laparoscopic resection of liver metastatic CRC is a feasible, effective, and safe modality in specifically indicated patients, both accelerating postoperative recovery and shortening hospitalization time.