Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.  2019 Aug;23(3):258-264. 10.14701/ahbps.2019.23.3.258.

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis

• Kabir T
• Tan ZZ
• Syn N
• Chung AY
• Ooi LL
• Goh BK

• KMID: 2456024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.2019.23.3.258

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS
This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive enucleation (MIEn) of the pancreas versus open enucleation (OEn).
METHODS
This is a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation at a single institution.
RESULTS
Seven patients underwent MIEn, of which 3 were robotic and 4 were laparoscopic. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the only significant difference was a reduced rate of readmissions within 30 days in the MIEn group versus the OEn group [0 vs 4 (30.8%), p=0.0464]. There were no conversions to open in the MIEn group, and median operation time was similar in both groups. There was no difference in median EBL in both groups, and none of the patients in our series required blood transfusions. The overall morbidity rate was 45.0% and the major complication (Clavien-Dindo>2) rate was 15%; which was similar between both groups. Seven (35%) patients had a Grade B/C POPF, and there was no significant difference between the two groups for this. The MIEn group had a shorter median length of stay compared to OEn [5 days (range, 3-24) vs 8.5 days (range, 5-42)] this was not significant on propensity-adjusted analysis (p=0.3195). There was no post-operative 90-day/in-hospital mortality in all 20 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Our experience demonstrates that MIEn was associated with similar perioperative outcomes and fewer readmissions compared to OEn.

Keyword

Enucleation; Laparoscopic; Robotic; Minimally-invasive; Pancreas

MeSH Terms

Blood Transfusion
Humans
Length of Stay
Mortality
Pancreas
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Kahl S, Malfertheiner P. Exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency after pancreatic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004; 18:947–955.

2. Crippa S, Boninsegna L, Partelli S, Falconi M. Parenchyma-sparing resections for pancreatic neoplasms. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010; 17:782–787.

3. Falconi M, Mantovani W, Crippa S, Mascetta G, Salvia R, Pederzoli P. Pancreatic insufficiency after different resections for benign tumours. Br J Surg. 2008; 95:85–91.

4. Strobel O, Cherrez A, Hinz U, Mayer P, Kaiser J, Fritz S, et al. Risk of pancreatic fistula after enucleation of pancreatic tumours. Br J Surg. 2015; 102:1258–1266.

5. Sperti C, Beltrame V, Milanetto AC, Moro M, Pedrazzoli S. Parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomies for benign or border-line tumors of the pancreas. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010; 2:272–281.

6. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017; 161:584–591.

7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–213.

8. Crippa S, Bassi C, Salvia R, Falconi M, Butturini G, Pederzoli P. Enucleation of pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2007; 94:1254–1259.

9. Kaiser J, Fritz S, Klauss M, Bergmann F, Hinz U, Strobel O, et al. Enucleation: a treatment alternative for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Surgery. 2017; 161:602–610.

10. Hüttner FJ, Koessler-Ebs J, Hackert T, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Diener MK. Meta-analysis of surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2015; 102:1026–1036.

11. Zhang T, Xu J, Wang T, Liao Q, Dai M, Zhao Y. Enucleation of pancreatic lesions: indications, outcomes, and risk factors for clinical pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 17:2099–2104.

12. Wang X, Tan CL, Zhang H, Chen YH, Yang M, Ke NW, et al. Short-term outcomes and risk factors for pancreatic fistula after pancreatic enucleation: a single-center experience of 142 patients. J Surg Oncol. 2018; 117:182–190.

13. Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF. Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery. 1996; 120:1051–1054.

14. Zhang RC, Zhou YC, Mou YP, Huang CJ, Jin WW, Yan JF, et al. Laparoscopic versus open enucleation for pancreatic neoplasms: clinical outcomes and pancreatic function analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30:2657–2665.

15. Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW, et al. Enucleation for benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas: single-center experience with 65 consecutive patients. Surgery. 2015; 158:1203–1210.

16. Tian F, Hong XF, Wu WM, Han XL, Wang MY, Cong L, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Br J Surg. 2016; 103:1358–1364.

17. Karaliotas C, Sgourakis G. Laparoscopic versus open enucleation for solitary insulinoma in the body and tail of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009; 13:1869.

18. Jin JB, Qin K, Li H, Wu ZC, Zhan Q, Deng XX, et al. Robotic enucleation for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas: a retrospective analysis and comparison from a high-volume centre in Asia. World J Surg. 2016; 40:3009–3020.

19. Belfiori G, Wiese D, Partelli S, Wächter S, Maurer E, Crippa S, et al. Minimally invasive versus open treatment for benign sporadic insulinoma comparison of short-term and long-term outcomes. World J Surg. 2018; 42:3223–3230.

20. Goh BKP, Lee SY, Kam JH, Soh HL, Cheow PC, Chow PKH, et al. Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution. J Minim Access Surg. 2018; 14:140–145.

21. Goh BKP, Chan CY, Lee SY, Chan WH, Cheow PC, Chow PKH, et al. Factors associated with and consequences of open conversion after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: initial experience at a single institution. ANZ J Surg. 2017; 87:E271–E275.

22. Goh BKP, Low TY, Lee SY, Chan CY, Chung AYF, Ooi LLPJ. Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single institution experience with 30 consecutive cases. ANZ J Surg. 2019; 89:206–210.

23. Goh BK, Wong JS, Chan CY, Cheow PC, Ooi LL, Chung AY. First experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy in Singapore: a report of three consecutive cases. Singapore Med J. 2016; 57:464–469.

24. Wang X, Chen YH, Tan CL, Zhang H, Xiong JJ, Chen HY, et al. Enucleation of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: short-term and long-term outcomes from a 7-year large single-center experience. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44:644–650.

25. Costi R, Randone B, Mal F, Basato S, Lévard H, Gayet B. A critical appraisal of laparoscopic pancreatic enucleations: right-sided procedures (Pancreatic Head, Uncus) are not mini-invasive surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013; 23:524–531.

26. Sahakyan MA, Røsok BI, Kazaryan AM, Barkhatov L, Haugvik SP, Fretland ÅA, et al. Role of laparoscopic enucleation in the treatment of pancreatic lesions: case series and case-matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:2310–2316.

27. Di Benedetto F, Magistri P, Ballarin R, Tarantino G, Bartolini I, Bencini L, et al. Ultrasound-guided robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Surg Innov. 2019; 26:37–45.

28. Perinel J, Adham M. ERAS and pancreatic surgery: a review. Updates Surg. 2016; 68:253–255.