BACKGROUND: Early drain removal (EDR) has been widely accepted, but not been routinely used in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and benefits of EDR versus routine drain removal (RDR) after PD or DP.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on medical search engines from January 1, 2008 to November 1, 2023, for articles that compared EDR versus RDR after PD or DP. The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Further analysis of studies including patients with low-drain fluid amylase (low-DFA) on postoperative day 1 and defining EDR timing as within 3 days was also performed.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven non-RCTs with a total of 9465 patients were included in this analysis. For the primary outcome, the EDR group had a significantly lower rate of CR-POPF (OR 0.23; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, a lower incidence was observed in delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.63, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), postoperative hemorrhage (OR 0.55, p = 0.02), reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.70, p = 0.003) and length of stay (MD -2.04, p < 0.001) in EDR. Consistent outcomes were observed in the subgroup analysis of low-DFA patients and definite EDR timing, except for postoperative hemorrhage in EDR.
CONCLUSIONS: EDR after PD or DP is beneficial and safe, reducing the incidence of CR-POPF and other postoperative complications. Further prospective studies and RCTs are required to validate this finding.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.
METHODS: All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.
RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis of randomized trials aimed to assess the benefits and harms of non-autologous versus no reinforcement of the pancreatic stump following distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS: It was performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 Guidelines. (registered in PROSPERO ID: EROCRD42021286863).
RESULTS: Nine relevant articles (between 2009 and 2021) were retrieved, comparing non-autologous reinforcement (757 patients) with non-reinforcement (740 patients) after PD. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in the reinforcement group (RR ​= ​0.677; 95 ​% CI [0.479, 0.956], p ​= ​0.027). The 95 ​% predictive interval (0.267-1.718) showed heterogeneity. Non-autologous reinforcement other than with \"Tachosil®\" was effective (subgroup analysis). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that covering the stump with non-autologous reinforcement other than Tachosil® had a preventive effect on the onset of POPF.

The solid pseudopapillary epithelial neoplasm (SPEN) of the pancreas is an uncommon tumor that accounts for approximately 1%-2% of exocrine pancreatic neoplasms. It predominantly affects female in their second and third decades of life. In this case report, we present a clinical scenario of a 21-year-old pregnant woman who incidentally discovered a solid cystic lesion in her pancreas, exhibiting features suggestive of SPEN. The patient underwent surgery during the second trimester. Management of pregnant females with SPEN poses challenges due to the absence of definitive treatment guidelines, particularly in determining the ideal timing for surgical intervention. Notably, during pregnancy, the presence of a small SPEN does not necessarily require immediate resection. However, if the tumor is of significant size, it can give rise to complications such as tumor rupture, multivisceral resection, recurrence, spontaneous abortion, intrauterine growth restriction, or premature delivery if not addressed. In the existing literature, a common finding is that approximately two-thirds of pregnant females with SPEN underwent surgery in the second trimester, often without complications for the mother or fetus. All these tumors were larger than 8 cm. The decision to operate before or after birth can be individualized based on team discussion. However, delay in surgery may lead to larger tumors and higher risks like bleeding, rupture, multivisceral resection, and recurrence. Therefore, second-trimester surgery seems safer, and lessens dangers, emergency surgery, and tumor recurrence.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a severe complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP); however, it is unclear how to effectively reduce the incidence. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine whether reinforced stapling reduces POPF after DP. From February 2007 to April 2023, a comprehensive search of electronic data and references was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In this study, the perioperative outcomes were evaluated for the reinforced stapler (RS) group and the standard stapler (SS) group in DP using Review Manager Software. Using fixed- or random-effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. In total, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 425 patients and five observational clinical studies (OCS) with 318 patients were included. In pooled meta-analyses from RCTs, there was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of POPF (OR = 0.79; 95% CI [0.47,1.35]; P = 0.39), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 10.66; 95% CI [- 28.83,50.16]; P = 0.6), operative time (MD = 9.88; 95% CI [- 8.92,28.67]; P = 0.3), major morbidity (OR = 1.12; 95% CI [0.67,1.90]; P = 0.66), reoperation (OR = 0.97; 95% CI [0.41,2.32]; P = 0.95), readmission (OR = 0.99; 95% CI [0.57,1.72]; P = 0.97) or hospital stay (MD = - 0.95; 95% CI [- 5.22,3.31]; P = 0.66). However, the results of POPF and readmission were favorable for RS in the OCS group.

(1) Background: Distal pancreatectomy is a standard treatment for tumours of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive techniques for all types of pancreatic tumours (benign and malignant) are being established, while concerns regarding oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves are being explored with prospective studies. This paper presents our unit\'s data in the context of the above concerns and provides a relevant narrative review of the current literature. (2) Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2021 for all adult patients who underwent elective distal pancreatectomy in our tertiary care referral HPB Unit. Data on demographics, underlying pathology, perioperative variables and post-operative complications were collected and reported using descriptive statistics. On review of the Miami guidelines, four important but less validated areas regarding distal pancreatectomy are presented in light of the current evidence; these are recent randomised controlled trials, oncological safety, cost effectiveness and learning curves in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). (3) Results: 207 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy in total from 2014-2021, with 114 and 93 patients undergoing open and minimally invasive techniques, respectively. 44 patients were operated on for PDAC in the open vs. 17 in the minimally invasive group. The operative time was 212 min for the open and 248 min for the minimally invasive group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was higher in the minimally invasive group vs. the open group (16% vs. 4%). (4) Conclusions: Our unit\'s data conform with the published literature, including three randomised control trials. These published studies will not only pave the way for establishing minimally invasive techniques for suitable patients, but also define their limitations and indications. Future studies will inform us about the oncological safety, cost effectiveness, overall survival and learning curves regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

UNASSIGNED: To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
UNASSIGNED: Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.
UNASSIGNED: Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas are rare tumors that represent 10% of cystic pancreatic tumors. They are potentially sex hormone-sensitive. However, mucinous cystic neoplasms occurring during pregnancy are relatively uncommon. A 33-year-old woman in her ninth week of gestation was referred to us due to abdominal pain for two months. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a well-defined unilocular cystic lesion at the tail of the pancreas, measuring 7x6.4 cm. The patient underwent tumor resection with distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy during the second trimester to prevent the potential risk of rupture of the neoplasm, rapid growth, and/or intrauterine growth restriction. Histopathological examination revealed a mucinous cystadenoma with no atypia or malignancy. The patient completely recovered from the surgery and had a healthy full-term baby. This case shows the benefit of performing the surgery during the second trimester compared to the potential risk of delaying the surgery.

Background: Extended distal pancreatectomy (EDP) is being increasingly performed for pancreatic cancers with suspected invasion into the adjacent organs. However, the perioperative safety and oncological efficacy of this procedure merit further elucidation. Methods: Major databases were searched for studies evaluating EDP, and a meta-analysis was performed using fixed- or random-effects models. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the analysis. EDP was found to be associated with significantly greater incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula overall and with major complications, re-explorations, mortality and readmissions. However, on pooled analysis of 3- and 5-year survival, EDP was found to be noninferior to standard distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion: EDP is feasible and may offer equivalent survival in highly selected patients but carries a higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality.