Jae Hoon Lee

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) to treat periampullary tumors. The clinical outcomes of L-PPPD were compared with open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PPPD). BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, few studies have compared L-PPPD with O-PPPD. The safety, short-term clinical benefits, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD remain controversial. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2012, a total of 2192 patients diagnosed with periampullary tumors were treated with curative resection at our institution. Of these patients, 137 underwent a laparoscopic approach and 2055 an open technique. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD. RESULTS: The mean operation time for the L-PPPD group was longer than for the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was similar, as was the incidence of complications, such as pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric empting (P > 0.05). The mean number of analgesic injections administered was lower in the L-PPPD group than in the O-PPPD group (P < 0.001), and the mean duration of the postoperative hospital stays was shorter (P < 0.001). The surgical resection margins and the number of lymph nodes in the resected specimens did not differ between the 2 groups, and there was no significant difference in overall survival curves. CONCLUSIONS: L-PPPD had the typical advantages of minimally invasive abdominal procedures, such as less pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery. It is technically safe and feasible, and has favorable oncologic outcomes in comparison with O-PPPD in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic surgery has many advantages, its application in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has not been sufficiently studied. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma. STUDY DESIGN: Among 167 consecutive patients between December 2006 and August 2013, 150 patients were included. Unmatched and propensity score-matched analyses were performed to compare the primary (oncologic adequacy) and secondary outcomes (hospital course and complications) between ODP and LDP groups. RESULTS: In unmatched patients, LDP was associated with an earlier return to diet and a shorter hospital stay compared with ODP. The 5-year survival rates were 27.6% in unmatched ODP (n = 80) and 32.5% in unmatched LDP (n = 70). Fifty-one patients from each group were selected by propensity score matching. In this matched patient comparison, LDP was again associated significantly with a shorter median postoperative time to restarting diet and a shorter hospital stay. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of primary outcomes of operative time, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin status, and secondary outcomes of frequency of pancreatic fistula and complications. The 2 groups also had comparable patient survival (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This large single-center study of laparoscopic surgery for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma indicated that LDP was safe and more efficacious than OPD after propensity score adjustment for presurgical variables of return to diet and length of stay.

Importance: Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. Interventions: Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46). Conclusion and Relevance: Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.