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.

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: The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor\'s relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors.
METHODS: Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis.
RESULTS: Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63-1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08-1.89) compared to PD.
CONCLUSIONS: While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP.

OBJECTIVE: Some researchers are concerned that the performance of pancreatic resection in cases of low malignancy with distal localization will increase, resulting in the occurrence or worsening of post-operative glucose intolerance. Herein, we retrospectively investigated the relationship between the pancreatic resection ratio and post-operative glucose intolerance in distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS: Total 135 patients who underwent DP at our hospital and were followed up for > 12 months between January 2013 and December 2022 were included. Of these, 52 patients were included, excluding those with pre-operative diabetes and those who underwent pancreatectomy using other than a stapling device. The pancreatic resection ratio (%) was measured using pancreatic volumetry by manually tracing the pancreatic area on computed tomography images obtained before and after surgery and the relationship with post-operative glucose intolerance was investigated.
RESULTS: Among the 52 patients, 13 (25.0%) showed post-operative worsening of glucose tolerance (impaired glucose tolerance [IGT] group). The pancreatic resection ratios were 51.1% and 34.8% in the IGT (13 patients) and non-IGT groups (39 patients), respectively (p = 0.0027). The cut-off value for the IGT group was 46.5%. The resection site was divided into two groups as follows. One group was resected near the portal vein (portal group) and the other group was resected more caudally (caudal group). Mean pancreatic resection ratios were 46.5% and 28.5% in cases of resection of the portal group (30 patients) and caudal group (22 patients), respectively (p < 0.0001). The thickness of the pancreas at the resection site was 13.1 mm in the portal group and 17.7 mm in the caudal group (p < 0.0001) and the incidence of pancreatic fistula was 6.7% and 9.1%, respectively (p = 0.7472). The incidence of post-operative glucose intolerance was 40.0% (12/30) in the portal group and 4.5% (1/22) in the caudal group (p = 0.0016).
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of low-grade tumors and benign disease, pancreatic resection with preservation of the remaining pancreatic volume should be considered whenever possible.

UNASSIGNED: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) with lymph node (LN) dissection is the standard procedure for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the tail (Pt-PDAC). However, the optimal surgery including extent of LN dissection is still being debated. The present study investigated the incidence and prognostic impact of LN metastasis on patients suffering from Pt-PDAC.
UNASSIGNED: This multicenter, retrospective study involved 163 patients who underwent DP for resectable Pt-PDAC at 12 institutions between 2013 and 2017. The frequency of LN metastasis and the effect of LN dissection on Pt-PDAC prognosis were investigated.
UNASSIGNED: There were high incidences of metastases to the LNs along the splenic artery in the patients with Pt-PDAC (39%). The rate of metastases in the LNs along the common hepatic, left gastric, and celiac arteries were low, and the therapeutic index for these LNs was zero. In pancreatic tail cancer located more distally, there were no metastases to the LNs along the common hepatic artery. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size was the only independent factor related to recurrence-free survival (HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.33-3.05, p = 0.001). The level of pancreas division and LN dissection along the common hepatic artery did not affect the site of tumor recurrence or recurrence-free survival.
UNASSIGNED: LN dissection along the hepatic artery for Pt-PDAC has little significance. Distal pancreatic transection may be acceptable in terms of oncological safety, but further examination of short-term outcomes and preservation of pancreatic function is required.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the main complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefit of different durations of progressive stapler closure on POPF rate and severity after DP.
METHODS: Patients who underwent DP between 2016 and 2023 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into two groups according to the duration of the stapler closure: those who underwent a progressive compression for < 10 min and those for ≥ 10 min.
RESULTS: Among 155 DPs, 83 (53.5%) patients underwent pre-firing compression for < 10 min and 72 (46.5%) for ≥ 10 min. As a whole, 101 (65.1%) developed POPF. A lower incidence rate was found in case of ≥ 10 min compression (34-47.2%) compared to < 10 min compression (67- 80.7%) (p = 0.001). When only clinically relevant (CR) POPFs were considered, a prolonged pre-firing compression led to a lower rate (15-20.8%) than the < 10 min cohort (32-38.6%; p = 0.02). At the multivariate analysis, a compression time of at least 10 min was confirmed as a protective factor for both POPF (OR: 5.47, 95% CI: 2.16-13.87; p = 0.04) and CR-POPF (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.19-5.45; p = 0.04) development. In case of a thick pancreatic gland, a prolonged pancreatic compression for at least 10 min was significantly associated to a lower rate of CR-POPF compared to < 10 min (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: A prolonged pre-firing pancreatic compression for at least 10 min seems to significantly reduce the risk of CR-POPF development. Moreover, significant advantages are documented in case of a thick pancreatic gland.

Pancreatic pseudocysts are surrounded by a non-epithelialized wall confined to the pancreas and localized to the pancreatic tissue or adjacent pancreatic cavity. In contrast, pancreatic cystic tumors occur less frequently than solid lesions and are often detected incidentally on imaging. Regarding the qualitative diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts, it is important to differentiate them from neoplastic cysts. We report the case of a 74-year-old woman with a giant hemorrhagic pancreatic pseudocyst and a suspected cystic pancreatic tumor, wherein distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy with lymph node dissection were performed. The patient was discharged 11 days postsurgery, with a good postoperative course. There are no reports of giant pancreatic pseudocysts larger than 10 cm with hematoma contents. The presumptive diagnosis of pseudocysts based on imaging alone may be difficult. Surgical resection is considered when it is difficult to distinguish a giant pancreatic pseudocyst from a cystic neoplasm.

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.

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.