Search

Background: Drain use in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. This survey sought to evaluate habits, experiences, and opinions of experts in the field on the use of drains to provide interesting insights for pancreatic surgeons worldwide. Methods: An online survey designed via Google Forms was sent in December 2020 to experienced surgeons of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Results: Forty-two surgeons (42/63, 67%) completed the survey. During their career, 74% (31/42) performed personally >500 pancreatic resections; of these, 9 (21%) >1,500. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents (29/42) declared to always use drains during pancreatic resections and 17% (7/42) in >50% of the operations. For these participants, the use of drains does not increase but reduces the risk of pancreatic fistula and other complications, and more importantly, helps to detect them earlier and manage them better. By contrast, 2 surgeons (5%) declared to never apply drains, whereas other 4 (10%) use drains only in selective cases, deeming that drains increase the risk of infection and other complications. When applied, drains are managed very heterogeneously as for the type of drains, enzyme testing, and removal schedules. Four participants declared to practice continuous irrigation. Twenty-two surgeons (55%) remove drains routinely within the third postoperative day, other 11 (27.5%) only in selected cases, whereas 7 (17.5%) normally keep drains longer. Conclusion: Despite plenty of publications on this topic, drain management in pancreatic surgery remains very heterogeneous. Safety and the surgeon´s personal experience seem to play a determining role.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. METHODS: An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

Central pancreatectomy is a parenchyma-sparing alternative to distal pancreatectomy in patients with a benign or low-grade malignant tumor in the body of the pancreas. The aim of central pancreatectomy is to prevent postoperative life-long endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. The downside of central pancreatectomy is the high rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, which is the main reason that many surgeons do not routinely use central pancreatectomy in eligible patients. Most studies report open or laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with a pancreatico-gastrostomy anastomosis in adults. This is the first description of a standardized approach to robotic central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction in an adolescent (16-year-old boy) with a pseudopapillary tumor in the body of the pancreas. The operation time was 248 min with 20 mL of blood loss. The postoperative course was uneventful except for the short-term medical treatment for a grade B pancreatic fistula. Robotic central pancreatectomy can be safely applied in selected patients in experienced centers.