Search

Abstract Aim Pancreatic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) that leaves a small remnant pancreas is often difficult. Pancreatic fistula is a major complication after PD, and fistulas are rare in patients with hard pancreas. However, the clinical impact of non‐reconstructed small remnant after PD with hard pancreas is unknown. Methods We included all patients who underwent PD for pancreatic tumor without pancreatic reconstruction in two institutions supervised by one surgeon between January 2004 and March 2021. Their short‐ or long‐term outcome after surgery was retrospectively analyzed. Results PD was performed in 774 patients, of whom 16 patients were without reconstruction (2.1%) with negative margins at the pancreatic stump. Pancreatic transection was performed above or to the left of the superior mesenteric artery, with a median remnant pancreas length of 3.7 cm (range, 1.3–10.0). A major complication (≥ Clavien–Dindo Grade IIIa) occurred in one patient (6%). Fistula of grade B occurred in one patient (6%). After a median follow‐up of 44 months (95%CI, 10.6–77.3), insulin administration was unnecessary in 11 patients. Conclusion The preservation of a small pancreatic remnant without reconstruction after PD can be performed safely and may enable the keeping of pancreatic endocrine function for some selected patients with hard pancreas.

BackgroundRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines.MethodsThis was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed.ResultsThe median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy.ConclusionsRPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.