Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy for Malignant Tumors

Department of Surgical Oncology, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, USA.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Impact Factor: 0.38). 11/2011; 43(1):83-6. DOI: 10.1007/s12029-011-9347-0
Source: PubMed


Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has become the gold standard for benign tumors. As more surgeons have expertise in open and laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, increasing numbers of benign-appearing tumors are being removed via minimally invasive techniques and found to have malignancy on final pathology. Because of our growing experience in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, we have begun removing preoperatively suspected malignancies in the distal pancreas with minimally invasive techniques.
All cases were collected prospectively in a database and analyzed retrospectively. All cases begun laparoscopically with the intention of performing the resection with minimally invasive techniques were considered even if the operation was ultimately converted to an open procedure.
A total of 12 cases have been attempted of which four required hand assistance and one required conversion to an open approach due to delayed bleeding from a calcified splenic artery that had been transected with laparoscopic GIA stapler device. In total, eight (67%) patients had malignant disease and four (33%) were found to have benign tumors. The median lymph node retrieval is 8 (range 3-16) with no positive margins. The morbidity rate is 17% with one reoperation (8%) and one mortality (8%) at 30 and 90 days.
The laparoscopic approach to malignant pancreatic tumors is feasible with similar morbidity and mortality rates to benign series. When tumors are next to the confluence of the splenic portal vein, a hand-assisted approach may be adviseable. Calcified splenic arteries should be sought on preoperative imaging and either transected in non-calcified segments or controlled via open techniques via the hand port.

15 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its advent nearly 15 years ago, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has gradually increased in popularity. Numerous reports have now documented the safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic approach to left-sided pancreas resections, and large-scale comparisons have been made between the laparoscopic and open approaches regarding perioperative outcomes for both benign and malignant lesions. Furthermore, several high-volume centers have described their initial experiences with robotic distal pancreatectomy in comparison with laparoscopic and open resections. This review summarizes the literature for both laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy over the past year, highlighting novel advances. Although studies suggest that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is equivalent if not superior to the open approach in some respects, randomized studies are needed to best delineate the putative benefits.
    06/2013; 1(2). DOI:10.1007/s40137-013-0014-1
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy (DP) through query of three national patient care databases. From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 2003-2009), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP, 2005-2010), and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER, 2003-2009) databases using appropriate diagnostic and procedural codes we identified all patients with a diagnosis of a benign or malignant lesion of the body and/or tail of the pancreas that had undergone a partial or distal pancreatectomy. Utilization of laparoscopy was defined in NIS by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision correspondent procedure code; and in NSQIP by the exploratory laparoscopy or unlisted procedure current procedural terminology codes. In SEER, patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition diagnosis codes and the SEER Program Code Manual, third edition procedure codes. We analyzed the databases with respect to trends of inpatient outcome metrics, oncologic outcomes, and hospital volumes in patients with lesions of the neck and body of the pancreas that underwent operative resection. NIS, NSQIP and SEER identified 4242, 2681 and 11  082 DP resections, respectively. Overall, laparoscopy was utilized in 15% (NIS) and 27% (NSQIP). No significant increase was seen over the course of the study. Resection was performed for malignancy in 59% (NIS) and 66% (NSQIP). Neither patient Body mass index nor comorbidities were associated with operative approach (P = 0.95 and P = 0.96, respectively). Mortality (3% vs 2%, P = 0.05) and reoperation (4% vs 4%, P = 1.0) was not different between laparoscopy and open groups. Overall complications (10% vs 15%, P < 0.001), hospital costs [44  741 dollars, interquartile range (IQR) 28 347-74 114 dollars vs 49 792 dollars, IQR 13 299-73 463, P = 0.02] and hospital length of stay (7 d, IQR 4-11 d vs 7 d, IQR 6-10, P < 0.001) were less when laparoscopy was utilized. One and two year survival after resection for malignancy were unchanged over the course of the study (ductal adenocarinoma 1-year 63.6% and 2-year 35.1%, P = 0.53; intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and nueroendocrine 1-year 90% and 2-year 84%, P = 0.25). The majority of resections were performed in teaching hospitals (77% NIS and 85% NSQIP), but minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was not more likely to be used in teaching hospitals (15% vs 14%, P = 0.26). Hospitals in the top decile for volume were more likely to be teaching hospitals than lower volume deciles (88% vs 43%, P < 0.001), but were no more likely to utilize MIS at resection. Complication rate in teaching and the top decile hospitals was not significantly decreased when compared to non-teaching (15% vs 14%, P = 0.72) and lower volume hospitals (14% vs 15%, P = 0.99). No difference was seen in the median number of lymph nodes and lymph node ratio in N1 disease when compared by year (P = 0.17 and P = 0.96, respectively). There appears to be an overall underutilization of laparoscopy for DP. Centralization does not appear to be occurring. Survival and lymph node harvest have not changed.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2012; 18(32):4342-9. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v18.i32.4342 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review compares outcomes of the laparoscopic technique with those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and assesses the efficacy, safety and feasibility of each type of procedure. Methods: Comparative studies published between January 1996 and April 2012 were included. Studies were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications. Results: Fifteen non-randomized comparative studies that recruited a total of 1456 patients were analysed. Rates of conversion from LDP to open surgery ranged from 0% to 30%. Patients undergoing LDP had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) -263.36.59 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -330.48 to -196.23 ml], fewer blood transfusions [odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.76], shorter hospital stay (WMD -4.98 days, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.92 days), a higher rate of splenic preservation (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.18-3.91), earlier oral intake (WMD -2.63 days, 95% CI -4.23 to 1.03 days) and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.75). However, there were no differences between the two approaches with regard to operation time, time to first flatus and the occurrence of pancreatic fistula and other postoperative complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection results in improved operative and postoperative outcomes compared with open surgery according to the results of the present meta-analyses. It may be a safe and feasible option for patients with lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm the relevance of these early findings.
    HPB 11/2012; 14(11):711-24. DOI:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00531.x · 2.68 Impact Factor
Show more