Search

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the extent of variation in the use and outcomes of MIPD in relation to OPD among countries is unclear as international studies using registry data are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the use, patient selection, and outcomes of MIPD and OPD in four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery., Methods: A post hoc comparative analysis including consecutive patients after MIPD and OPD from four nationwide and multicenter pancreatic surgery audits from North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2020). Patient factors related to MIPD were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Outcome analyses excluded the Swedish audit because < 100 MIPD were performed during the studied period., Results: Overall, 44,076 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy were included (29,107 North America, 7586 Germany, 4970 the Netherlands, and 2413 Sweden), including 3328 MIPD procedures (8%). The use of MIPD varied widely among countries (absolute largest difference [ALD] 17%, p < 0.001): 7% North America, 4% Germany, 17% the Netherlands, and 0.1% Sweden. Over time, the use of MIPD increased in North America and the Netherlands (p < 0.001), mostly driven by robotic MIPD, but not in Germany (p = 0.297). Patient factors predicting the use of MIPD included country, later year of operation, better performance status, high POPF-risk score, no vascular resection, and non-malignant indication. Conversion rates were higher in laparoscopic MIPD (range 28-45%), compared to robotic MIPD (range 9-37%). In-hospital/30-day mortality differed among North America, Germany, and the Netherlands; MIPD (2%, 7%, 4%; ALD 5%, p < 0.001) and OPD (2%, 5%, 3%; ALD 3%, p < 0.001), similar to major morbidity; MIPD (25%, 42%, 38%, ALD 17%, p < 0.001) and OPD (25%, 31%, 30%, ALD 6%, p < 0.001), respectively., Conclusions: Considerable differences were found in the use and outcome, including conversion and mortality rates, of MIPD and OPD among four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery. Our findings highlight the need for international collaboration to optimize treatment standards and patient outcome., Competing Interests: Declarations. Disclosures: Nine de Graaf, Marc G. Besselink and Mohammad Abu Hilal received funding from Intuitive Surgical® for the investigator-initiated DIPLOMA-2 randomized trial on minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy; Marc G. Besselink received funding from Amsterdam UMC for studies on safe implementation of robotic pancreatic surgery; funding from the Dutch Digestive Foundation (‘Maag Lever Darm Stichting’), for investigator-initiated studies on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (Agreement ID: I 16-05); from Intuitive Surgical® for the investigator-initiated LAELAPS-3 training program for robotic PD in the Netherlands for which training suturing material was provided by ETHICON, Johnson & Johnson; from Intuitive® for the investigator-initiated LEARNBOT training program for robotic PD in Europe; Simone Augustinus, Ulrich Wellner, Karin Johansen, Bodil Andersson, Joal D. Beane, Bergthor Björnsson, Olivier R. Busch, Catherine H. Davis, Michael Ghadimi, Elizabeth M. Gleeson, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Melissa E. Hogg, Hjalmar C. van Santvoort, Bobby Tingstedt, Waldemar Uhl, Jens Werner, Caroline Williamsson, Herbert J. Zeh, Amer H. Zureikat, Henry A. Pitt, and Tobias Keck have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit., Results: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality., Conclusions: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden., Methods: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014-2020 were included., Results: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159-2.300, P = .005)., Conclusions: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)