Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). METHODS: We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Endoscopic or laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a cumulative meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent large number of studies comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (diameter ≤ 5 cm), the results remain conflicting. The objective of this work was to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic resection vs. laparoscopic resection. METHODS: The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched medical databases up to January 2020. Meta-analytical random or fixed effects models were used in pooled analyses. Meta-regression, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to improve the accuracy of the conclusion. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: A total of 12 cohort studies with 1383 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic resection were identified, while three cohort studies with 167 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery were found. We found that endoscopic resection had shorter operation times (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -40.8 min to -13.4 min) and lengths of hospital stay (WMD = -1.43 d, 95% CI: -2.31 d to -0.56 d) than did laparoscopic resection. The results were stable and reliable. There were no significant differences in terms of blood loss, hospitalization costs, incidence of complications or recurrence rates. For tumor sizes 2 - 5 cm, endoscopic resection increased the risk of positive margins (relative risk [RR] = 5.78, 95% CI: 1.31 - 25.46). Although operation times for endoscopic resection were shorter than those of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (WMD = -41.03 min, 95% CI: -59.53 min to -22.54 min), there was a higher incidence of complications (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.57 - 10.34). CONCLUSIONS: In general, endoscopic resection is an alternative method for gastric GISTs ≤ 5 cm. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery may work well in combination. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate or update these results.

Effects of intraoperative PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), strongly associated with higher mortality risk, can develop in up to 58% of patients undergoing abdominal surgery. More and more evidence shows that the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy has a lung protection effect in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, however, the role of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during the intraoperative period in preventing PPCs for laparoscopic surgery is not clearly defined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 208 patients with a high risk of PPC, undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery, will be enrolled and randomised into a standard PEEP (6-8 cm H2O) group and a low PEEP (≤2 cm H2O) group. Both groups will receive a fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.50 and a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg ideal body weight (IBW). Standard perioperative fluid management and analgesic treatments are applied in both groups. The primary end point is PPC within 7 days after surgery. Secondary end points are the modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, postoperative extrapulmonary complications, postoperative surgical complications, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medicine College) (registration number KY2018026) on 22 October 2018. The first participant was recruited on 15 April 2019 and the estimated completion date of the study is October 2021. The results of this trial will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.chictr.org.cn, ID: ChiCTR1800019865. Registered on 2 December 2018; preresults.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center.

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

Effects of intraoperative PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for bladder cancer or prostate cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are increasing studies showing that the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy has a lung protection effect in patients undergoing abdominal surgery; however, the appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has not yet defined. Adopting a suitable PEEP may prevent postoperative pulmonary complications. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is the newest and most minimally invasive treatment for bladder cancer or prostate cancer. It is also necessary to consider the effects of Trendelenburg position with pneumoperitoneum on airway pressure and pulmonary function. The role of PEEP during the intraoperative period in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is not clearly defined. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 208 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for bladder cancer or prostate cancer will be enrolled and then randomly assigned to a standard PEEP (6-8 cm H2O) group and a low PEEP (≤2 cm H2O) group. Both groups will receive an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.50 and a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg ideal body weight. Standard perioperative fluid management standardization and analgesic treatments will be applied in both groups. The primary endpoint is postoperative pulmonary complications within 7 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints are the modified clinical pulmonary infection score, postoperative extrapulmonary complications, postoperative surgical complications, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality. DISCUSSION: This trial aimed to assess the effects of low tidal volumes combined with intraoperative PEEP ventilation strategy on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for bladder cancer or prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID: ChiCTR1800019867 . Registered on December 2, 2018.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in elderly and octogenarian patients: a single-center, comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Although recent reports have suggested the advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the potential benefits of this approach in elderly patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the value of LDP in the elderly, in whom co-morbid diseases were generally more common. METHODS: Seventy elderly patients (≥ 70 years) and 264 non-elderly patients (40-69 years) who underwent LDP, and 48 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) between May 2005 and May 2018 were studied. Demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Comorbidity was more common in elderly patients than in non-elderly patients who underwent LDP (57.1 vs. 38.3%, p < 0.01). The intraoperative factors, postoperative complication rate, and length of hospital stay were comparable in these two groups. Elderly patients who underwent LDP had a significantly shorter operative time (185.5 vs. 208.0 min, p = 0.02), less blood loss (191.0 vs. 291.8 mL, p < 0.01), and reduced length of postoperative hospital stay (11.4 vs. 15.1 days, p < 0.01) than elderly patients who had ODP. The overall complication rate tended to be lower in LDP group than that in ODP group (20.0 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: LDP performed on the elderly is safe and feasible, leading to short-term outcomes similar to those of non-elderly patients. LDP could be an alternative to ODP in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.

AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required. CORE TIP: To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Risk factors of nosocomial bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined risk factors of nosocomial bloodstream infections. However risk factors of nosocomial bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit have never been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate this topic. METHODS: Retrospective surgical intensive care unit patients' data were collected in a tertiary hospital from January 2010 to August 2014. Infected and non-infected patients were compared with univariate analysis of categorical variables to obtain statistical significance risk factors. Then multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to acquire the final risk factors. RESULTS: 98 patients were diagnosed with nosocomial bloodstream infections in total. Mortality rate was 29.6% (n=29). The data indicated gram-positive cocci were the main pathogens (64.3%; n=63). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (>65 years old) (OR, 2.297; CI95, 0.870 to 6.062), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score (>18) (OR, 6.981; CI95, 2.330 to 15.865), multiple organ dysfunction score (>8) (OR, 9.857; CI95, 6.395 to 19.505), mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.583; CI95, 2.134 to 10.956), central venous catheter (OR, 5.875; CI95, 2.212 to 13.456) and selective surgery (OR, 3.455; CI95, 3.442-9.235) were risk factors of nosocomial BSI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nosocomial bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit setting often have a poor prognosis. Age (>65 years old), chronic health evaluation II score (>18), multiple organ dysfunction score (>8), usage of mechanical ventilation, central venous catheter and selective surgery can be regarded as risk factors.

Resection of a cholangiocarcinoma via laparoscopic hepatopancreato- duodenectomy: a case report.

Some laterally advanced cholangiocarcinomas behave as ductal spread or local invasion, and hepatopancreatoduodenectomy (HPD) may be performed for R0 resection. To date, there have been no reports of laparoscopic HPD (LHPD) in the English literature. We report the first case of LHPD for the resection of a Bismuth IIIa cholangiocarcinoma invading the duodenum. The patient underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and right hemihepatectomy. Child's approach was used for the reconstruction. The patient recovered well with bile leakage from the 2(nd) postoperative day and was discharged on the 16(th) postoperative day with a drainage tube in place which was removed 2 wk after discharge. Postoperative pathology revealed a well-differentiated cholangiocarcinoma and the margin of liver parenchyma, pancreas and stomach was negative for metastases. The results suggest that LHPD is a feasible and safe procedure when performed in highly specialized centers and in suitable patients with cholangiocarcinoma.