BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a frequent complication after pancreatectomy, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Optimizing prediction models for POPF has emerged as a critical focus in surgical research. Although over sixty models following pancreaticoduodenectomy, predominantly reliant on a variety of clinical, surgical, and radiological parameters, have been documented, their predictive accuracy remains suboptimal in external validation and across diverse populations. As models after distal pancreatectomy continue to be progressively reported, their external validation is eagerly anticipated. Conversely, POPF prediction after central pancreatectomy is in its nascent stage, warranting urgent need for further development and validation. The potential of machine learning and big data analytics offers promising prospects for enhancing the accuracy of prediction models by incorporating an extensive array of variables and optimizing algorithm performance. Moreover, there is potential for the development of personalized prediction models based on patient- or pancreas-specific factors and postoperative serum or drain fluid biomarkers to improve accuracy in identifying individuals at risk of POPF. In the future, prospective multicenter studies and the integration of novel imaging technologies, such as artificial intelligence-based radiomics, may further refine predictive models. Addressing these issues is anticipated to revolutionize risk stratification, clinical decision-making, and postoperative management in patients undergoing pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is challenging owing to the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas. Increasing attention has been paid to changes in quality of life (QOL) after pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize and analyze current research results on QOL after pancreatic surgery.
METHODS: A systematic search of the literature available on PubMed and EMBASE was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by screening the references of retrieved articles. Studies on patients\' QOL after pancreatic surgery published after January 1, 2012, were included. These included prospective and retrospective studies on patients\' QOL after several types of pancreatic surgeries. The results of these primary studies were summarized inductively.
RESULTS: A total of 45 articles were included in the study, of which 13 were related to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), seven to duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR), nine to distal pancreatectomy (DP), two to central pancreatectomy (CP), and 14 to total pancreatectomy (TP). Some studies showed that 3-6 months were needed for QOL recovery after PD, whereas others showed that 6-12 months was more accurate. Although TP and PD had similar influences on QOL, patients needed longer to recover to preoperative or baseline levels after TP. The QOL was better after DPPHR than PD. However, the superiority of the QOL between patients who underwent CP and PD remains controversial. The decrease in exocrine and endocrine functions postoperatively was the main factor affecting the QOL. Minimally invasive surgery could improve patients\' QOL in the early stages after PD and DP; however, the long-term effect remains unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure among PD, DP, CP, and TP with a superior postoperative QOL is controversial. The long-term benefits of minimally invasive versus open surgeries remain unclear. Further prospective trials are warranted.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to examine and analyse the outcomes and patient experiences associated with laparoscopic central pancreatectomy.
METHODS: The perioperative data of 16 patients who underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy were retrospectively analysed at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital (Xingning Branch and Eastern Branch) from September 2017 to July 2023.
RESULTS: All surgical procedures were completed without the need for intraoperative conversion to open surgery. In two cases, intraoperative cholangiography was performed, while in four cases, intraoperative fluoroscopic laparoscopic assistance was utilized. The duration of the operations varied from 160 to 360 min, with an average of 281.75 min. The estimated volume of intraoperative bleeding ranged from 50 to 300 mL, with an average of 113.75 mL. The postoperative pathology results revealed that there were two cases of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, six cases of serous cystic neoplasms, one case of mucinous cystic neoplasm, five cases of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms, and two cases of neuroendocrine tumours. The maximum diameter of the tumours ranged from 3.0 to 5.0 cm, with an average of 3.67 cm. There were no instances of postoperative common bile duct stenosis or biliary leakage. Among the cases, five did not exhibit pancreatic fistula, six experienced biochemical leakage, three had grade B pancreatic fistula, and two had grade C pancreatic fistula.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy, as a method to preserve pancreatic function, entails specific surgical risks and a notable likelihood of postoperative pancreatic fistula, necessitating the expertise of seasoned surgeons for its execution.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP.
METHODS: In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP).
METHODS: Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM.
CONCLUSIONS: LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

BACKGROUND: For tumors in the neck and body of the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy (DP) has been the standard surgical procedure for the last few decades and central pancreatectomy (CP) is an alternative surgical option. Whether CP better preserves remnant pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions after surgery remains a subject of debate.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP compared with DP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors in the neck and body of the pancreas.
METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 296 patients who underwent CP or DP for benign and low-malignant neoplasms at the same hospital between January 2016 and March 2020. Perioperative outcomes and long-term morbidity of endocrine/exocrine function were prospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in overall morbidity or clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P = 0.055). Delayed gastric emptying occurred more frequently in the CP group than in the DP group (29.4% vs 15.3%; P < 0.005). None of the patients in the CP group had new-onset or aggravated distal metastasis, whereas 40 patients in the DP group had endocrine function deficiency after surgery (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of diarrhea immediately after surgery, but at postoperative 12 mo, a significantly higher number of patients had diarrhea in the DP group than in the CP group (0% vs 9.5%; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CP is a generally safe procedure and is better than DP in preserving long-term pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions. Therefore, CP might be a better option for treating benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms in suitable patients.

Robotic central pancreatectomy has been applied for 20 years with the advantage of minimally invasive surgery. The general pancreatic reconstruction approaches include pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy. Recently, our group reported a few preliminary cases of application of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. This novel approach has not been compared with the conventional approach on a large scale. The objective of this study is to compare end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis with pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy based on the perioperative and long-term outcomes. Clinical data consist of demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy from March 2015 to December 2019 were collected and analyzed. Seventy-four patients received a robotic central pancreatectomy with either end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis (n = 52) or pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 22). End-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was associated with shorter operative time and reduced blood loss. Despite a higher incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.009), the newer anastomotic technique was also associated with earlier removal of nasogastric tube and resumption of oral intake. Long-term results, in terms of either endocrine or exocrine function, were not affected by the anastomotic technique. We have shown the feasibility of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis. Despite streamlined technique, the newer anastomosis appears to improve early post-operative results while preserving endocrine and exocrine functions in the long-term period. Evaluation of the true potential of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis requires a prospective and randomized study enrolling a large number of patients.

Objective: To explore the learning curve of central pancreatectomy (CP) and provide an excellent reference for surgeons to get the point of this operation. Methods: Clinical data of 73 patients who underwent CP in the same operation team from January 2006 to January 2018 were collected and retrospectively analyzed by the moving average method (MAM) and the cumulative sum method (CUSUM). Data was analyzed by statistical package for social science (SPSS) software. Results: According to the MAM and CUSUM curves, the learning process of CP could be divided into two stages. At the first stage (n=1-11), the median operation time was 340 minutes and the median intraoperative hemorrhage was 400 ml. In the second stage (n=12-73), the median operation time was 213 minutes and the median intraoperative hemorrhage was 100 ml. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the two stages of patients in terms of other aspects (P>0.05). Conclusions: CP can be mastered after 11 cases of exercises. In the first 11 operations, surgeons should get familiar with the operation process, respond actively to emergencies and accumulate experience to gain this surgical technique fast.
目的： 利用数学模型拟合精确的胰腺节段切除术(CP)学习过程曲线，为更好地了解CP手术方式的练习过程提供参考。 方法： 通过收集中国医学科学院肿瘤医院胰胃外科同组医师在2006年1月至2018年1月期间施行的73例CP患者数据，按照时间排序标号。利用移动平均法(MAM)和累积求和法(CUSUM)精确分析学习曲线，并以SPSS统计软件对不同阶段的相关参数进行对比分析。 结果： 通过MAM和CUSUM拟合的学习曲线将CP分为2个阶段，第1阶段(1～11例)中位手术时间为340 min，中位术中出血量为400 ml；第2阶段(12～73例)中位手术时间为213 min，中位术中出血量为100 ml，差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.001)。2个阶段患者一般资料和术后并发症的发生率差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。 结论： CP度过11例的学习阶段后效果趋于稳定。外科医师在前11例CP的学习过程中需要熟悉操作流程，积极应对突发事件，积累经验，才能更安全地度过学习阶段。.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers.
METHODS: A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed.
RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients.
CONCLUSIONS: CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.