| 1. |
- Chen, Jeffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : SPRINGER. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 30, s. 3023-3032
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.MethodsAn international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.ResultsIn total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.ConclusionsIn selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- de Graaf, Nine, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2) : study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1745-6215. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023. © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
|
|
| 4. |
- Korrel, Maarten, et al.
(författare)
-
Short-term Outcomes After Spleen-preserving Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy With or Without Preservation of Splenic Vessels A Pan-European Retrospective Study in High-volume Centers
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 277:1, s. E119-E125
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective:To compare short-term clinical outcomes after Kimura and Warshaw MIDP. Background:Spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy can be achieved by either preservation (Kimura) or resection (Warshaw) of the splenic vessels. Multicenter studies reporting outcomes of Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP are scarce. Methods:Multicenter retrospective study including consecutive MIDP procedures intended to be spleen-preserving from 29 high-volume centers (>= 15 distal pancreatectomies annually) in 8 European countries. Primary outcomes were secondary splenectomy for ischemia and major (Clavien-Dindo grade >= III) complications. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of excluding ("rescue") Warshaw procedures which were performed in centers that typically (>75%) performed Kimura MIDP. Results:Overall, 1095 patients after MIDP were included with successful splenic preservation in 878 patients (80%), including 634 Kimura and 244 Warshaw procedures. Rates of clinically relevant splenic ischemia (0.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.127) and major complications (11.5% vs 14.4%, P = 0.308) did not differ significantly between Kimura and Warshaw MIDP, respectively. Mortality rates were higher after Warshaw MIDP (0.0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.023), and decreased in the sensitivity analysis (0.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.052). Kimura MIDP was associated with longer operative time (202 vs 184 minutes, P = 0.033) and less blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P < 0.001) as compared to Warshaw MIDP. Unplanned splenectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate (20.7% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001). Conclusions:Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP provide equivalent short-term outcomes with low rates of secondary splenectomy and postoperative morbidity. Further analyses of long-term outcomes are needed.
|
|
| 5. |
- van der Heijde, Nicky, et al.
(författare)
-
Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1365-182X .- 1477-2574. ; 25:4, s. 400-408
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low-and high-volume centers across Europe.Methods: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality.Results: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed >= 20 MIPD annually. This was 30/ 54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD.Conclusion: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.
|
|
| 6. |
- van Ramshorst, Tess M. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 110:1, s. 76-83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. Methods Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. Results Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. Conclusion Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently. This study established benchmark values for laparoscopically and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in both unselected and low-risk patients using two validated methodologies. The benchmark values require different interpretation and application based on the purpose of benchmarking and the patient cohort, and can be used for in-hospital and interhospital comparison and improvement purposes.
|
|
