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.

Subgroup analysis aims to identify subgroups (usually defined by baseline/demographic characteristics), who would (or not) benefit from an intervention under specific conditions. Often performed post hoc (not pre-specified in the protocol), subgroup analyses are prone to elevated type I error due to multiple testing, inadequate power, and inappropriate statistical interpretation. Aside from the well-known Bonferroni correction, subgroup treatment interaction tests can provide useful information to support the hypothesis. Using data from a previously published randomized trial where a p value of 0.015 was found for the comparison between standard and Hemopatch® groups in (the subgroup of) 135 patients who had hand-sewn pancreatic stump closure we first sought to determine whether there was interaction between the number and proportion of the dependent event of interest (POPF) among the subgroup population (patients with hand-sewn stump closure and use of Hemopatch®), Next, we calculated the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) and the \"attributable proportion\" (AP). The p value of the interaction was p = 0.034, the RERI was - 0.77 (p = 0.0204) (the probability of POPF was 0.77 because of the interaction), the RERI was 13% (patients are 13% less likely to sustain POPF because of the interaction), and the AP was - 0.616 (61.6% of patients who did not develop POPF did so because of the interaction). Although no causality can be implied, Hemopatch® may potentially decrease the POPF after distal pancreatectomy when the stump is closed hand-sewn. The hypothesis generated by our subgroup analysis requires confirmation by a specific, randomized trial, including only patients undergoing hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic stump after distal pancreatectomy.Trial registration: INS-621000-0760.

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: 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.

Presently, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is predominantly utilized for benign or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail. The splenic blood vessel-preserving Kimura technique and non-splenic blood vessel-preserving Warshaw technique represent the two primary procedures. In prior reports, total splenectomy was most frequently performed when splenic blood vessels could not be preserved, and severe splenic congestion and ischemia were identified following the dissection of splenic blood vessels. This paper introduces a new method of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, entailing a distal pancreatectomy with partial spleen preservation, illustrated through the presentation of two surgical cases. During physical examination, two patients were identified to have benign or low-grade malignant masses in the pancreatic tail. Preoperative examination indicated that the lesion was closely associated with the splenic blood vessels or splenic hilum. During surgery, neither the Kimura technique nor the Warshaw technique could be executed. After resecting the pancreatic body and tail, and a portion of the spleen, the superior pole of the spleen was successfully preserved by maintaining the short gastric blood vessels therein. This technical report demonstrates the viability of this novel spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, a distal pancreatectomy with partial spleen preservation, for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic body and tail lesions. The innovative technique achieves partial spleen preservation by effectively preserving the short gastric blood vessels in the superior pole of the spleen.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy fistula risk score (D-FRS) and DISPAIR-FRS has not been widely validated for predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 104 patients undergoing DP. The predictive value of the D-FRS and DISPAIR-FRS were compared. Risk factors associated with POPF were investigated by multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 104 patients, 23 (22.1%) were categorized into the POPF group (all grade B). The areas under the ROC (AUCs) of the D-FRS (preoperative), D-FRS (intraoperative), and DISPAIR-FRS were 0.737, 0.809, and 0.688, respectively. Stratified by the D-FRS (preoperative), the POPF rates in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 5%, 22.6%, and 36.4%, respectively. By the D-FRS (intraoperative), the POPF rates in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 8.8%, 47.1%, and 47.4%, respectively. By the DISPAIR-FRS, the POPF rates in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and extreme-high-risk groups were 14.8%, 23.8% and 62.5%, respectively. Body mass index and main pancreatic duct diameter were independent risk factors of POPF both in preoperative (P = 0.014 and P = 0.033, respectively) and intraoperative (P = 0.015 and P = 0.039) multivariate analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the D-FRS (preoperative), D-FRS (intraoperative), and DISPAIR-FRS has good performance in POPF prediction after DP. The risk stratification was not satisfactory in current Asian cohort.

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.

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). LDP has similar oncological outcomes as open surgery in PDAC. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes in obese patients with RDP versus LDP for PDAC.
METHODS: Retrospectively, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for PDAC between 2012 and 2022 at 12 international expert centres were included.
RESULTS: out of 372, 81 patients were included. All baseline features were comparable between the two groups. RDP was associated with decreased blood loss (495mlLDP vs. 188mlRDP; p = 0.003), lower conversion rate (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019) and lower rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019). Overall and disease-free survival were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients with left-sided PDAC, the robotic approach was associated with improved intraoperative outcomes and fewer severe complications.