search for




 

Laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: Initial single center experience
2021 Feb;25(1):102-11
Published online February 28, 2021;  https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.2021.25.1.102
Copyright © 2021 .

Abdul Rahman Al-Sadairi1,*, Antonio Mimmo1,*, Rami Rhaiem1, Francesco Esposito1, Linda J. Rached1, Ahmad Tashkandi1,2, Perrine Zimmermann1, Riccardo Memeo3, Daniele Sommacale1,4, Reza Kianmanesh1, and Tullio Piardi1,5

1Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Robert Debré of Reims, University of Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France, 2Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 3Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University “Aldo Moro” of Bari, Bari, Italy, 4Department of Digestive and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), 5Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, General Surgery Department, Simone Veil Hospital, Troyes, University of Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
Received March 28, 2020; Revised September 22, 2020; Accepted September 27, 2020.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the gold standard for the treatment of periampullary tumors. Many specialized centers have adopted the totally laparoscopic or hybrid laparoscopic PD (LPD). However, this procedure has not yet been standardized and serious debate is taking place towards its safety and feasibility. Herein, we report our recent experience whit hybrid-LPD.
Methods: During 2019 in our department 56 PD were performed and 21 (37.5%) underwent hybrid-LPD. We have retrospectively reviewed the short-term outcomes of these patients.
Results: Main indication was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (71,4%). The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were respectively 425 min (range, 226 to 576) and 317 ml (range 60 to 800 ml). Conversion to an open procedure was required in 4 patients (19%): 2 with suspected vein involvement, 1 for mesenteric panniculitis and 1 for biliary injury. The post-operative complication rate was 42.8% (9/21). Regarding post-operative pancreatic fistula, three patients (14.2%) had grade B and 1 grade C (4.7%). Median length of hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-23) and 90- days mortality was 4.7%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.7 (range 12 to 26). The rate of margins R0 was 80%; R1 >0<1 mm was 10.5% and R1 0 mm was 9.5%.
Conclusions: Hydrid–LPD is safe and feasible. Careful patient selection and increasing experience can reduce the risk of post-operative complications.
Keywords : Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy; Artery first approach; Whipple procedure; Pancreatic surgery; LN 16 dissection; Pancreatic cancer
INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic surgery is considered to be of one of the most complicated procedures in digestive surgery. Despite being technically challenging, it did not resist to the development of mini-invasive approach. Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy is now validated and considered by several authors as the gold standard even for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).1

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex surgical procedure with high morbidity and mortality.2 Larger indications have been endorsed since the development of neoadjuvant therapy and induction chemo/radiation therapy for borderline and locally advanced tumors leading to a more complex procedures with challenging dissection techniques and higher rates of vascular resection.3,4

The first laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) was described in 1994.5 Since then and with the advancement in technology many specialized centers have adopted the LPD. Several studies have been published including three randomized controlled trials (RCT) with inconclusive results regarding the superiority of LPD over OPD.6-8

In the present study, we report our initial experience over the last year with LPD for the resection phase and mini-incision for the reconstructive phase (hybrid-LPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case series

Patients

In 2019, 56 PD were performed at University Hospital Robert Debre of Reims (France) among them 21 were hydrid–LPD.

Surgical indications were discussed during our weekly institutional multidisciplinary oncological meeting (MOM). Demographic characteristics, intraoperative variables and postoperative variables were prospectively collected.

We stratified margins into R0 or absence of tumoral contact and R1 with invasion within 1 mm of the margin (R1 less than 1 mm), and R1 with direct invasion of the resection margin (R1 direct).3

Surgical procedure

Resection stage (laparoscopic phase)

Patient under general anesthesia is placed in the supine position with open legs and slightly inclined on the left side. Open laparoscopy is performed in the umbilical region. Three trocars, two 10 mm and one 5 mm, are positioned in the right hypochondrium; a 10 mm trocar is positioned to the left of the optical trocar and a 5 mm trocar is positioned in the xiphoid region, for liver retraction (Fig. 1). Exploration of peritoneal cavity is performed to rule out peritoneal carcinomatosis or liver metastases. After mobilization of the hepatic flexure, Kocher maneuver is performed and routine dissection of aortocaval lymph nodes (LN 16) is done.

Fig 1. (A) Trocars’ position. (B) Red trocars 10 mm, green trocars 5 mm.

“Artery first approach” starts at the origin of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) from the aorta with incision of the perivascular connective tissues and is continued in a caudal direction along the vascular axis for 4-5 cm. During this dissection we can identify, if present, the origin of the replaced right hepatic artery (rRHA). In case of suspicion of SMA involvement, a fresh-frozen section exanimation of the arterial sheath is performed. If the examination is negative the LPD continue with the opening of gastro-colic ligament, section of Henle’s trunk and completely dissection of right margin of SMA in mesopancreas (operator returns between the patient’s legs). The division of the gastro-colic ligament is performed at the level of the superior border of the colon. At this level, the stomach is firmly retracted toward the right and medial side and the pancreatic neck is separated from the venous axis. Superior mesenteric vein (SMV) is identified by pulling up and following the stump of Henle’s trunk at the inferior border of the pancreas. At this step, a grasper is used to retract the SMV to the right exposing thus the right margin of the SMA as well as the left margin of the mesopancres. Proceeding in a caudal-cranial fashion, the dissection of anterior and posterior dissection of SMA are joined.

Transection of distal stomach and dissection of lymph node N8a allow the identification of common hepatic artery (CHA). This latter is dissected until the origin of gastroduodenal artery (GDA). Special care is undertaken during control of GDA to preserve a small stump. Prior to ligation of GDA, clamping test is always performed with intraoperative ultrasound to check intrahepatic arterial flow. The procedure continue with a standard lymphadenectomy.

Cholecystectomy and section of common bile duct (CBD) with frozen section are routinely realized. Lymphadenectomy along the portal vein will expose the upper part of the retroportal lamina.

The pancreatic parenchyma is transected by Ultracision. At this step, precise care is undertaken to identify the pacreatic duct. Scissors are used to avoid thermal damage. Before dissection of the uncinate process, the jejunum is sectioned using an Endo GIA stapler and its mesenteric vessels sectioned using a LigaSure. The uncinate process is resected along the right margin of SMA and the dissection of the retroprtal lamina is performed in a cranial fashion.

Reconstruction stage (mini-laparotomy phase)

A 10-11 cm incision midline incision is used to remove the specimen and to perform the anastomosis (Fig. 2). Duct-to-duct wirsung-jejunal anastomosis is performed by four 5/0 prolene on posterior and anterior layer or modified Blumgart pancreatico-jejunal anastomosis with trans anastomotic stent by 3/0 prolene single stich . Hepatico-jejunal end-to-side with 5/0 or 6/0 PDS single stich and gastro-jejunal end-to-side anastomosis with 4/0 PDS running suture. A tubular drain is placed behind the pancreatic anastomosis and was extracted through the 5 mm right orifice. We start the octreotide therapy after the section of pancreas parenchyma and an antibiotic prophylaxis at the pre-operative induction.

Fig 2. Mini-laparotomy incision detail, between the xyphoid process and umbilical site.

Follow up

According to international and institutional guidelines, all patients are followed after surgery with biological markers (CA 19.9) and radiological examination (CT scan) every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter.

Statistical analysis

Patients were identified in a prospectively maintained database and analyzed retrospectively. Categorical variables were reported as numbers and percentages, continuous variables were reported as medianes and ranges. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.

RESULTS

The data of the operated patients are summarized in Table 1. During the study period, twenty-one patients underwent hydrid–LPD at University Hospital Robert Debre of Reims.

Table 1 . Baselines characteristics of twenty–one patients underwent Hybrid-DPC

n or mean% or range
Men1153.3%
Age (years)67.943-84
BMI (kg/m2)24.520.7-32
ASA
II733
III1467
Tumor Size (mm)2115-55
Vascular invasion314.2
Neoadjuvant therapy1173.3
Operative time (minutes)425226-576
Conversion to open surgery419
Estimated blood loss (ml)31760-800
Intraoperative transfusion314.2
Total post-operative complications942.8
Major post-operative complication*314.2
Pancreatic fistula419
Grade B314.3
Grade C14.7
Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage14.7
Delayed gastric emptying419
Bile leak29.5
Pulmonary embolism29.5
Reoperation14.7
Length of hospital stay (days)149-23
90-days readmission419
90-days mortality14.7
Histologic subtype
Adenocarcinoma1571.4
AAC29.5
IPMN29.5
CA14.8
DA14.8
Number of harvested LN17.712-26
Invaded LN1.71-7
R0 rate1780
R1 >0<1 mm29.5
R1 0 mm29.5
Postoperative chemotherapy1571.4
Follow-up (months)7.53-12

*≥grade 3 of Clavien-Dindo Classification

LN, limph-nodes; AAC, ampullary adenocarcinoma; CA, cholongiocarcinoma; DA, duodenaladenocarcinoma; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm



Mean age of the patients was 67.9 years old (range, 43 to 84 y), and mean body mass index was 24.5 kg/m2> (range, 20.7 to 32 kg/m2>). Most of the patients (15/21) had pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The tumor size was 21 mm (15-55), 14.2% had a vascular invasion and 73.3% received neoadjuvant therapy.

The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were respectively 425 min (range, 226 to 576) and 317 ml (range 60 to 800 ml) respectively. Three patients required intraoperative transfusions (14.2%). In 2 cases a preservation of replaced RHA was achieved. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 4 (19%) patients: 2 with suspected vein involvement; 1 for mesenteric panniculitis which did not allow the progression of the intervention and 1 for biliary injury in anatomical variation with insertion of the left biliary brunch below the origin of the cystic duct just above the margin of the pancreas.

The complication rate was 42.8% (9/21) among them 3 (14.2%) had severe complications (≥ grade 3 of Clavien- Dindo Classification). Three patients (14.3%) had grade B and 1 grade C (4.7%) post-operative pancreas fistula (POPF) as classified by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula criteria.9 The same patient with grade C POPF had a postoperative bleeding on Bühler artery. Initially treated with radiological embolization, he developed a thrombosis of the celiac trunk with hepatic and gastric ischemia. The patient underwent a spleno-aortic by-pass but he died in the post-operative period. The other major complications were described in Table 1. Four patients (19%) were readmitted in the first 90 days. The median length of hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-23) and 90-days mortality was 4.7%. Regarding the oncological status the mean of tumor dimension was 2.12 cm (range 1.5 to 5.5 cm); the mean number of harvested LN were 17.7 (range 12 to 26) with mean invaded LN 1.7 (range 1 to 7) and the rate of margins R0 were 80%; R1 >0<1 mm 10.5% and R1 0 mm 9.5%.

The median follow-up was 7.5 months (3-12). All patients are alive at the last follow-up. Two patients 2/20 (10%) developed respectively local recurrences and liver metastases. Thus, the overall recurrence rate per patient was 36.5% (7/19).

DISCUSSION

The LPD was described for the first time by Gagner and Pomp in 19945: after this case report, multiple series showed the safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic approach6,7,10-21 even with vascular resection.22,23 These studies showed comparable outcomes between mini-invasive approach and open approach with reduced intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay.

For the first time, Dokmak et al.24 showed more complication rate with laparoscopic approach in non-selected tumors, a significant increase of POPF grade C and post-operative bleeding. For the author a selection of the patients is mandatory, especially for obese patients and for the patients with a high risk of pancreatic fistula.24

To date, three randomized control studies (RCTs)6-8 have been published in the literature, one of which LEOPARD-2 trial showed a statistically significant increase of complication-related death in the laparoscopic approach: the study was prematurely stopped and the authors suggest to consider carefully the indication to LPD.25 In this study, the authors described a fully LPD with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy using 3/0 v-loc barbed sutures.25

We started our LPD experience without restrictive selection criteria. As previously decribed, conversion was required in obese patients and for borderline tumors. Analyzing our series, one biliary injury (lateral transection of right posterior sectoral duct) occurred and conversion was immediately performed. Imaging showed a low insertion of this duct into the CBD. Several approaches and techniques have been reported in the literature.

The first question might be performing a total LPD8,12-14,22,23 or a hybrid-LPD.11,16,17,20,21 It is true that the LPD is even more challenging especially during the reconstructive phase in particular with regard to pancreatic anastomosis. The absence of severe postoperative adhesion might enhance the risk of postoperative severe complications and in particular of POPF and hemorrhage. This might explain the higher rates of severe complications and mortality of the LEPOARD2 RCT.

In view of these considerations, we decided to perform a hybrid approach.

The second point might be the technical steps to follow as several authors reported slight technical modifications in comparison to the open technique. Indeed, Chapman et al.26 started with pancreas parenchyma transection after GDA ligation, then they make the gastric resection and finally they make a Kocher maneuver. After the section of the jejunum and complete mobilization of the specimen, they explore the superior mesenteric artery.26 This technique has the advantage of its reproducibility but raises the question of the surgical attitude towards the discovery of a non resectable tumor infiltrating SMA with the GDA, stomach and jejunum already controlled.

Routine sampling of aortocaval node (LN 16) is widely spread in the open approach as LN 16 metastases are equivalent to distance metastasis (M1) considered by most of HPB teams as a major prognostic factor contraindicating PD27. Somehow, few retrospective studies reported usefulness of PD event if LN16 are invaded in patients with CA19-9 level <350 U/ml.28

Although widely used in open approach, several authors did not describe in their laparoscopic technique a routine sampling of the aortocaval lymph nodes.29 After rouling out metastases, dissection of paraaortic LN was performed with frozen section analysis. In literature, concerning LPD, various options are reported ranging from no routine sampling with on demand dissection in case of pre30 and/or intraoperative9,20,31 suspected LN 16 invasion.

In our experience, we try to emulate the open technique during the laparoscopic approach and we realize always the LN 16 picking: in all 21 cases treated, none of the patients presented a LN 16 metastatic invasion on fresh- frozen section.

Recently the concept of “artery fist” exploration, before the resection stage, has become common. A recent recommendations of HPB and transplant French surgical association (ACHBT) recommend the first approach of mesenteric vessels.32 This technique allows to find a possible tumor infiltration of SMA origin, which represents a contraindication for PD and thus to increase R0 resection rate. Several approaches to the SMA have been described and the results of a recent meta-analysis indicated that the “artery first” approach (AFA) has a significant decrease in post-operative complications, a better operative outcome, a high rate of R0, a lower local recurrence rate and an increases survival.33

Reviewing the literature (Table 2),6-8,11,15,18,20,21,23,24,26,34-47 there are only 6 series that describe laparoscopic approach of SMA.22,31,33,48-50

Table 2 . Review of the literature

Author Study period Study typeTot pts (disease) Open LOR time meanBlood loss mlCD>3Reoperation <30 dPOPFPPHDGELymph nodes numberR0Length of stay Mean daysMortality <30 d
2009 - Cho et al.20 (2007-2008)
Prospective
T 30 (M):
O 15
LA 15 (Mes)
NS
L 338
O 287
NS
L 445
O 552
NSNS
L 13%
O 13%
NS
L 7%
O 0%
NS
L 18
O 20
NSNS
L 16.4
O 15.6
2011 - Zureikat et al.34 (2006-2010)
Retrospective
T 28 (M):
O 14
TL 14 (Mes)
Open
L 456
O 372
NS
L 300
O 400
NS
L 7%
O 7%
NS
L 36%
O 42.8%
NSNS
L 18
O 19
NS
L 100%
O 91.7%
NS
L 8
O 8.5
NS
L 7%
O 0%
2012 - Asbun and Stauffer35 (2005-2011)
Retrospective
T 268 (M):
O 215
TL 53 (Std)
Open
O 401
L 541
L
O 1,032
L 195
NS
O 24.%
L 24.5%
NS
O 7%
L 3.8%
NS
O 17.3%
L 16.7%
NS
O 5.6%
L 9.4%
NS
O 15.3%
L 11.3%
L
O 16
L 23
NS
O 83%
L 94.9%
L
O 12
L 8
NS
O 8.8%
L 5.7%
2013 - Mesleh et al.36 (2009-2012)
Cost analysis
T 123 (NM):
O 75
TL 48 (NM)
Open
O 355
L 551
NSNS
O 31%
L 31%
NS
O 2%
L 4%
NS
O 6%
L 9%
NSNS
O 8%
L 13%
NSNSNS
O 8
L 7
NS
2014 - Hakeem et al.37 (2005-2009)
Retrospective
T 24 (Ca):
O 12
TL 12 (Std)
NS
L 16.7%
O 50%
NS
L 16.7%
O 8.3%
NS
L 20
O 18
NS
L 75%
O 66.7%
NS
L 14.9
O 14.9
NS
L 0%
O 0%
2014 - Langan et al.15 (2010-2013)
Retrospective
T 53 (M):
O 25
LA 28 (Std)
NS
O 347
L 355
NS
O 454
L 336
L
O 9.4
L 7.1
2014 - Wang et al.21 (2009-2013)
Retrospective
T 33 (M):
O 20
LA 13 (Std)
Open
LA 594
O 553 (303-892)
L
LA 450
O 1000
NS
LA 2%
O 8%
NS
LA 4%
O 6%
NSNSNS
LA 22
O 20
NS
LA 70%
O 53%
L
LA 8
O 12
NS
LA 8%
O 20%
2014 - Wellner et al.38 (2010-2013)
Retrospective
T 80 (NM):
O 40
LA 40 (Std)
NS
O 410
LA 343
LapNS
O 7%
LA 10%
NS
O 7%
LA 10%
NS
O 11%
LA 7%
NS
O 3%
LA 5%
NS
O 11%
LA 5%
NS
O 19
LA 15
NSNS
O 16
LA 14
NS
O 0%
LA 1%
2015 - Croome et al.23 (2008-2013)
Retrospective
T 322(PDAC):
O 214
TL 108 (Mes)
NS
TL 379.4
O 387.6
L
TL 492
O 866
NS
TL 5.6%
O 13.6%
NSNS
TL 11%
O 12%
NS
TL 7%
O 6%
NS
TL 9%
O 18%
NS
TL 21
O 20
NS
TL 77.8%
O 76.6%
L
TL 6
O 9
NS
TL 1%
O 2%
2015 - Adam et al.39 (2010-2011)
Retrospective
T 7061 (Ca):
O 6078
TL, TR 983 (NM)
NSNSNSOpen RR 1.87
2015 - Dokmak et al.24 (2011-2014)
Prospective
T 92 (M):
O 46
TL LA 46 (Std)
Open
L 342
O 264
NS
L 368
O 293
NS
L 28%
O 20%
NS
L 24%
O 11%
Open
L 24%
O 6%
Open
L 24%
O 7%
NS
L 17%
O 15%
NS
L 25
O 23
NS
L 2%
O 0%
2015 - Liang and Jayaraman40 (2011-2013)
Retrospective
T 44 (M):
O 29
TL,LA 15 (Std)
NS
L 342
O 358
NSNS
L 33%
O 17%
NSNS
L 20%
O 14%
NS
L 9
O 14
NS
L 100%
O 90%
NS
L 8
O 9
2015 - Sharpe et al.18 (2010-2011)
Retrospective
T 4421 (PDAC):
O 4037
TL 384 (NM)
L
O 15
L 17
L
O 74%
L 80%
L
O 12
L 10
NS
O 3.7%
L 5.2%
2015 - Song et al.41 (2007-2012)
Case control
T 2192 (Ca):
O 1524
TL 137 (Std)
Open
L 480.4
O 351.9
NS
L 592
O 555
NS
L 8.2%
O 7.1%
NSNS
L 6.3%
O 7.5%
NSNS
L 3.2%
O 7.5%
NS
L 15
O 16.2
NS
L 72.7%
O 81%
L
L 14.1
O 20
NS
2015 - Tan et al.42 (2009-2014)
Retrospective
T 60 (NM):
O 30
TL 30 (Std)
Open
TL 513
O 371.67
NSNSNSNS
TL 10%
O 6%
NS
TL 1%
O 1%
NSNS
TL 8
O 9
NSL
TL 10
O 11.8
NS
TL 0%
O 1%
2016 - Delitto et al.43 (2010-2014)
Cohort
T 102 (Ca):
O 50
TL 52 (NM)
NS
L 361
O 360
L
L 260
O 518
NS
L 25%
O 32%
NSL
L 17%
O 36%
NS
L 10%
O 6%
NSNS
L 23
O 20
L
L 90.4%
O 74%
L
L 9.
O 11.9
NS
L 2%
O 0%
2017 - Stauffer et al.44 (1995-2014)
Retrospective
T 251 (PDAC):
O 193
TL 58 (Std)
Open
O 375
L 518
L
O 600
L 250
NS
O 30.1%
L 22.4%
NS
O 6.2%
L 1.7%
NS
O 12.3%
L 11.8%
NS
O 4.1%
L 6.9%
NS
O 14.5%
L 17.2%
L
O 17
L 27
L
O 9
L 6
NS
O 5.2%
L 3.4%
2017 - Conrad et al.45 (2000-2010)
Propensity score
T 65 (PDAC):
O 25
TL 40 (NM)
NSNSNS
L 70%
O 68%
NSNS
L 30.5%
O 42%
NSNSNS
L 20
O 17
NS
L 84.1%
O 85.8%
NS
L 23
O 28
NS
2017 - Palanivelu et al.6 (2013-2015)
RCT
T 64 (Ca):
O 32
TL 32 (Std)
Open
O 320
L 359
L
O 401
L 250
NS
O 10%
L 8%
NS
O 1%
L 1%
NS
O 6%
L 5%
NS
O 4%
L 3%
NS
O 7%
L 5%
NS
O 17
L 18
NS
O 94%
L 97%
L
O 13
L 7
NS
O 1%
L 1%
2018 - Chapman et al.26 (2012-2016)
Retrospective
T 47 (Amp):
O 25
TL 22 (Std)
Open
TL 314
O 359
L
TL 300
O 500
NSNSNS
TL 36.4%
O 28.0%
NSNS
TL 27.3%
O 32.0%
NS
TL 19
O 15
NS
TL 100% 0 100%
NS
TL 11.5
O 9
NS
TL 0%
O 0%
2018 - Meng et al.46 (2010-2015)
Retrospective
T 116 (NM):
O 58
TL 58 (NM)
Open
L 475
O 335
NS
L 200
O 220
NSNS
L 15.52%
O 15.52%
NS
L 55.17%
O 58.62%
NS
L 8.62%
O 8.62%
NS
L 15.52%
O 15.52%
NS
L 16
O 15
NS
L 100.0%
O 94.83%
NS
L 14
O 13
NS
L 1.72%
O 1.72%
2018 - Chen et al.47 (2013-2017)
Retrospective
T 102 (M):
O 55
TL 47 (AF)
Open
L 410
O 245
L
L 210
O 420
NS
L 4.26%
O 5.45%
NSNS
L 12.8%
O 14.5%
NS
L 2.13%
O 3.63%
NS
L 4.26%
O 3.63%
NS
L 20
O 19
NS
L 100%
O 100%
L
L 13
O 18±5.5
NS
L 0%
O 0%
2018 - Deichman et al.11 (2000-2015)
Prospective
T 120 (M):
O 60
LA 60 (NM)
L
L 352
O 397
lapNS
L 22%
O 20%
L
L 15%
O 36%
NS
L 8%
O 13%
L
L 8%
O 20%
NS
L 13
O 16
NSL
L 14
O 18
NS
L 0%
O 3%
2018 - Poves et al.7 (2013-2017)
RCT
T 66 (M):
O 32 TL,
LA 34 (NM)
OpenL
O 37%
L 0%
NS
O 7.3%
L 0%
NS
O 21.9%
L 15.4%
NS
O 9.8%
L 7.7%
NS
O 24.4%
L 7.7%
NSNSL
O 21
L 14
Lap
O 2.4%
L 0%
2019 - Van Hilst et al.8 (2016-2017)
RCT
T 99 (M):
O 49
TL 50 (NM)
Open
L 410
O 274
NS
L 300
O 450
NS
L 50%
O 39%
NS
L 12%
O 6%
NS
L 28%
O 24%
NS
L 10%
O 14%
NS
L 34%
O 20%
NS
L 11
O 11
NS
L 82%
O 76%
NS
L 11
O 10
Open
L 10%
O 2%

M, mixed tumors; Ca, cancer; Mes, mesenteric approach; Std, standard approach; T, total number of patients; POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula; PPH, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage; DGE, delayed gastric emptying; CD>3, clavien-dindo grade>3; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; O, open; L, laparoscopic; NM, not mentioned; TL, totally laparoscopic; LA, laparoscopically assisted; NS, not significant



Many of the series published to date report R0 rates approaching 85-100% but no definition of R0 was reported. Surgical margin has been reported to be an independent prognostic factor. The revised R0 definition (R0=1 mm margin) has been endorsed by an International consensus meeting;51 Strobel et al.52 has demonstrated that it is necessary to maintain at least 1 mm to have a better survival at 5 years. In our experience, we found an 80% RO higher than what we normally report in open surgery. This might be explained by magnification of traditional vision of the mesopancreas (and uncinate process) in the laparoscopic approach. Honda et al.53 described a technique for which the right margin artery of the uncinate process is visualized in a caudo-cranial sense putting the camera in the 10 mm trocart to the right of the optical trocar (umbilical site). However, the key-factor remains that the execution of the Kocher maneuver as a subsequent time will put the operator at risk of finding “nasty surprises” related to the presence of tumor infiltration. It could be suggested that even if not performing an “artery first” as a first step, the complete mobilization of the duodenum allows us to visualize possible distal metastases.

With laparoscopic approach, authors did not change their technique of anastomosis. Reconstruction was reported either with PJ or PG.11,16,20,21 Only Deichmann report is POPF grade B/C rate of 15%, similar to our result. Probably, the increase of POPF in LPD, more than in robot-assisted LPD or hybrid-LPD, is linked to perform a single-row pancreatojejunal anastomosis: this technique increase de POPF risk of 4.6 times.54 In a recent pan-european validation, the authors explain this increase risk of complication due to the single-row pancreatic anastomosis: for this reason they discouraged the use.40 In our technique, as mentioned above, we performed a double-row pancreatic anastomosis.

In conclusion, in our initial experience of Hydrid–LPD, we observed the advantage of laparoscopic magnification in the resection phase and the precision of the reconstruction phase through a small incision. As reported in literature, the laparoscopic approach improves exposition and dissection, but at the same time could increase post-operative complication: for this reason we suggest to perform the reconstruction stage via a small incision.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Analyzed the data and write the work: ARAS, AM. Designed the work: ARAS, AM, TP. Collected the data: FE, LJR, AT, PZ. Revised and approved the work: ARAS, AM, RR, RM, DS, RK, TP.

References
  1. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H, Boerma D, van den Boezem P, Daams F, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2019;269:2-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Schmidt CM, Powell ES, Yiannoutsos CT, Howard TJ, Wiebke EA, Wiesenauer CA, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 20-year experience in 516 patients. Arch Surg 2004;139:718-725; discussion 725-727.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Faris JE, Blaszkowsky LS, McDermott S, Guimaraes AR, Szymonifka J, Huynh MA, et al. FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center experience. Oncologist 2013;18:543-548.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Kim SS, Nakakura EK, Wang ZJ, Kim GE, Corvera CU, Harris HW, et al. Preoperative FOLFIRINOX for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: is radiation necessary in the modern era of chemotherapy? J Surg Oncol 2016;114:587-596.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8:408-410.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, Babu NS, Srivatsan Gurumurthy S, Anand Vijai N, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg 2017;104:1443-1450.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, Iglesias M, Radosevic A, Ilzarbe L, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;268:731-739.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, van Dieren S, Dijkgraaf MG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:199-207.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017;161:584-591.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Zhao Z, Yin Z, Hang Z, Ji G, Feng Q, Zhao Q. A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci Rep 2017;7:2220.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Deichmann S, Bolm LR, Honselmann KC, Wellner UF, Lapshyn H, Keck T, et al. Perioperative and long-term oncological results of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as hybrid technique- a matched pair analysis of 120 cases. Zentralbl Chir 2018;143:155-161.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Pisarska M, Major P, Wysocki M, Stefura T, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017;402:841-851.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Ricciardiello M, Minni F. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: what is the best "choice"? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies. World J Surg 2018;42:788-805.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Magge D, Zureikat A, Hogg M, Zeh HJ 3rd. Minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2016;25:273-286.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Langan RC, Graham JA, Chin AB, Rubinstein AJ, Oza K, Nusbaum JA, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures. Surgery 2014;156:379-384.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Keck T, Kuesters S, Wellner U, Hopt UT, Karcz WK. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatic head resection and hybrid open reconstruction via pancreatogastrostomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:373-377.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Sánchez-Cabús S, Pittau G, Gelli M, Memeo R, Schwarz L, Sa Cunha A. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: hybrid surgical technique. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:e7-e11.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, Prinz RA, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, et al. Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg 2015;221:175-184.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Speicher PJ, Nussbaum DP, White RR, Zani S, Mosca PJ, Blazer DG 3rd, et al. Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:4014-4019.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M, Takiguchi N, Shimada H, Kainuma O, et al. Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 2009;198:445-449.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Wang Y, Bergman S, Piedimonte S, Vanounou T. Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach. Can J Surg 2014;57:263-270.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. Cai Y, Gao P, Li Y, Wang X, Peng B. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with major venous resection and reconstruction: anterior superior mesenteric artery first approach. Surg Endosc 2018;32:4209-4215.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 2015;19:189-194; discussion 194.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, Bensafta Y, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:831-838.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Bosscha K, Dijkgraaf MG, Gerhards MF, Groot Koerkamp B, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:1.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Chapman BC, Gleisner A, Ibrahim-Zada I, Overbey DM, Paniccia A, Meguid C, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: changing the management of ampullary neoplasms. Surg Endosc 2018;32:915-922.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Schwarz L, Lupinacci RM, Svrcek M, Lesurtel M, Bubenheim M, Vuarnesson H, et al. Para-aortic lymph node sampling in pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2014;101:530-538.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Asaoka T, Miyamoto A, Maeda S, Hama N, Tsujie M, Ikeda M, et al. CA19-9 level determines therapeutic modality in pancreatic cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node metastasis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2018;17:75-80.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Schwarz L, Tortajada P, Pittau G, Di Fiore F, Sefrioui D, Bridoux V, et al. "Laparoscopic para-aortic lymph node sampling" First approach for pancreatic adenocarcinoma as an oncological practice. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2019;29:900-904.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Pittau G, Sànchez-Cabùs S, Laurenzi A, Gelli M, Cunha AS. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: right posterior superior mesenteric artery "first" approach. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22(Suppl 3):S345-S348.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Navarro JG, Kang CM. Pitfalls for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: need for a stepwise approach. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2019;3:254-268.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Delpero JR, Sauvanet A. Vascular Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: 2019 French Recommendations Based on a Literature Review From 2008 to 6-2019. Front Oncol 2020;10:40.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Jiang X, Yu Z, Ma Z, Deng H, Ren W, Shi W, et al. Superior mesenteric artery first approach can improve the clinical outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020;73:14-24.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL, Hughes SJ. Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:1151-1157.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:810-819.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP, Asbun HJ. Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 2013;27:4518-4523.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Hakeem AR, Verbeke CS, Cairns A, Aldouri A, Smith AM, Menon KV. A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2014;13:435-441.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Wellner UF, Küsters S, Sick O, Busch C, Bausch D, Bronsert P, et al. Hybrid laparoscopic versus open pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: retrospective matched case comparison in 80 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2014;399:849-856.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG 3rd, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 2015;262:372-377.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Liang S, Jayaraman S. Getting started with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: is it worth it? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2015;25:712-719.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW, et al. Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 2015;262:146-155.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Tan CL, Zhang H, Peng B, Li KZ. Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:5311-5319.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  43. Delitto D, Luckhurst CM, Black BS, Beck JL, George TJ Jr, Sarosi GA, et al. Oncologic and perioperative outcomes following selective application of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary malignancies. J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:1343-1349.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  44. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 2017;31:2233-2241.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Conrad C, Basso V, Passot G, Zorzi D, Li L, Chen HC, et al. Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis. Surg Endosc 2017;31:3970-3978.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Meng LW, Cai YQ, Li YB, Cai H, Peng B. Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of nonpancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2018;28:56-61.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  47. Chen XM, Sun DL, Zhang Y. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with uncinated process approach: a comparative study evaluating perioperative outcomes (Retrospective cohort study). Int J Surg 2018;51:170-173.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  48. Azagra JS, Arru L, Estévez S, Silviu-Tiberiu MP, Poulain V, Goergen M. Pure laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with initial approach to the superior mesenteric artery. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2015;10:450-457.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  49. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Kainuma O. Tips of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: superior mesenteric artery first approach (with video). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2014;21:E19-E21.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  50. Morales E, Zimmitti G, Codignola C, Manzoni A, Garatti M, Sega V, et al. Follow "the superior mesenteric artery": laparoscopic approach for total mesopancreas excision during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 2019;33:4186-4191.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  51. Bockhorn M, Uzunoglu FG, Adham M, Imrie C, Milicevic M, Sandberg AA, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2014;155:977-988.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  52. Strobel O, Hank T, Hinz U, Bergmann F, Schneider L, Springfeld C, et al. Pancreatic cancer surgery: the new R-status counts. Ann Surg 2017;265:565-573.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  53. Honda G, Kurata M, Okuda Y, Kobayashi S, Sakamoto K, Takahashi K. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: taking advantage of the unique view from the caudal side. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:e45-e49.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Mungroop TH, Klompmaker S, Wellner UF, Steyerberg EW, Coratti A, D'Hondt M, et al. Updated alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS) to include minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: pan-European validation. Ann Surg 2021;273:334-340.
    Pubmed CrossRef