Citations

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

AbstractBackgroundSurgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy‐based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).MethodsTwenty‐five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsFour clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.ConclusionsThe expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

Objective: The ISGPS aimed to develop a universally accepted definition for PPAP for standardized reporting and outcome comparison. Background: : PPAP is an increasingly recognized complication after partial pancreatic resections, but its incidence and clinical impact, and even its existence are variable because an internationally accepted consensus definition and grading system are lacking. Methods: The ISGPS developed a consensus definition and grading of PPAP with its members after an evidence review and after a series of discussions and multiple revisions from April 2020 to May 2021. Results: We defined PPAP as an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreatic remnant beginning within the first 3 postoperative days after a partial pancreatic resection. The diagnosis requires (1) a sustained postoperative serum hyperamylasemia (POH) greater than the institutional upper limit of normal for at least the first 48 hours postoperatively, (2) associated with clinically relevant features, and (3) radiologic alterations consistent with PPAP. Three different PPAP grades were defined based on the clinical impact: (1) grade postoperative hyperamylasemia, biochemical changes only; (2) grade B, mild or moderate complications; and (3) grade C, severe life-threatening complications. Discussions: The present definition and grading scale of PPAP, based on biochemical, radiologic, and clinical criteria, are instrumental for a better understanding of PPAP and the spectrum of postoperative complications related to this emerging entity. The current terminology will serve as a reference point for standard assessment and lend itself to developing specific treatments and prevention strategies.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) requires sufficient laparoscopic training for optimal outcomes. Our aim is to determine the learning curve and investigate the factors influencing surgical outcomes during the learning curve.MethodsWe analyzed surgical results of 150 consecutive cases of LPD performed by three hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons during their 50 first cases. Learning curves were constructed by cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Preoperative factors influencing resection time and blood loss were investigated in the introductory and stable periods.Results The learning curve could be divided into three phases: initial (1–20 cases), plateau (21–30), and stable (31–50). Resection time with lymph node dissection was significantly longer during the introductory period (initial and plateau periods) (P < 0.01) but not the stable phase (P = 0.51). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with pancreatitis had longer resection times and massive blood loss in both the introductory and stable periods (stable phase). High visceral fat area was also significantly related to massive blood loss in the introductory period (P = 0.04).ConclusionsHepatopancreatobiliary surgeons need more than 30 cases until LPD becomes stable. Lymph node dissection and patients with high visceral fat area and concomitant pancreatitis should be avoided during the introductory period of the learning curve.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral factors affect the level of difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The purpose of this study was to develop a difficulty scoring (DS) system to quantify the degree of difficulty in LDP.MethodsWe collected clinical data for 80 patients who underwent LDP. A 10‐level difficulty index was developed and subcategorized into a three‐level difficulty index; 1–3 as low, 4–6 as intermediate, and 7–10 as high index. The automatic linear modeling (LINEAR) statistical tool was used to identify factors that significantly increase level of difficulty in LDP.ResultsThe operator's 10‐level DS concordance between the 10‐level DS by the reviewers, LINEAR index DS, and clinical index DS systems were analyzed, and the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic were at 0.869, 0.729, and 0.648, respectively, showing good to excellent inter‐rater agreement. We identified five factors significantly affecting level of difficulty in LDP; type of operation, resection line, proximity of tumor to major vessel, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension/splenomegaly.ConclusionsThis novel DS for LDP adequately quantified the degree of difficulty, and can be useful for selecting patients for LDP, in conjunction with fitness for surgery and prognosis.

AbstractBackgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has gained in popularity recently. However, there is no consensus on whether to preserve the spleen or not. In this study, we compared MIDP outcomes between spleen‐preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS); as well as outcomes between splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw's technique (WT).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library was conducted and the reference lists of review articles were hand‐searched.ResultsFifteen relevant studies with 769 patients were selected for meta‐analyses of DPS and SPDP, while another 15 studies with 841 patients were used for the analysis between SVP and WT. Compared with the DPS group, SPDP patients had significantly lower incidences of infectious complications (P = 0.006) and pancreatic fistula (P = 0.002), shorter operative time (P < 0.001), and less blood loss (P = 0.01). Compared with WT, SVP patients had significantly lower incidences of splenic infarction (P < 0.001) and secondary splenectomy (P = 0.003). Subanalysis for laparoscopic surgery alone had similar results.ConclusionsBased on this study, SPDP has significantly superior outcomes compared to DPS. When a spleen is preserved, SVP has better outcomes over WT for reducing splenic complications.