Current status of minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer(PC)is the most lethal cancer among digestive system cancers.Although the only way to radically cure PC is surgical resection,complex surgical procedures and severe post-operative complications lead to high mortality.In recent years,minimally invasive surgery has become more common for PC.Minimally invasive pancreatic resection(MIPR)with the laparoscopic or robotic method has shown its superiority compared with traditional surgery.However,increasing evidence indicates that the long-term or even short-term outcomes of MIPR for PC patients remain controversial.Moreover,the indications and learning curve of MIPR require further assessment.This review aims to discuss the progress in current MIPR,analyze the specific problems and obstacles in the development of MIPR,and try to standardize MIPR procedures and improve the outcomes of MIPR.

Minimally invasive liver resection for huge(≥10cm)tumors:an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses

Background:The application and feasibility of minimally invasive liver resection(MILR)for huge liver tumours(≥10 cm)has not been well documented.Methods:Retrospective analysis of data on 6,617 patients who had MILR for liver tumours were gathered from 21 international centers between 2009-2019.Huge tumors and large tumors were defined as tumors with a size≥10.0 cm and 3.0-9.9 cm based on histology,respectively.1:1 coarsened exact-matching(CEM)and 1:2 Mahalanobis distance-matching(MDM)was performed according to clinically-selected variables.Regression discontinuity analyses were performed as an additional line of sensitivity analysis to estimate local treatment effects at the 10-cm tumor size cutoff.Results:Of 2,890 patients with tumours≥3 cm,there were 205 huge tumors.After 1:1 CEM,174 huge tumors were matched to 174 large tumors;and after 1:2 MDM,190 huge tumours were matched to 380 large tumours.There was significantly and consistently increased intraoperative blood loss,frequency in the application of Pringle maneuver,major morbidity and postoperative stay in the huge tumour group compared to the large tumour group after both 1:1 CEM and 1:2 MDM.These findings were reinforced in RD analyses.Intraoperative blood transfusion rate and open conversion rate were significantly higher in the huge tumor group after only 1:2 MDM but not 1:1 CEM.Conclusions:MILR for huge tumours can be safely performed in expert centers It is an operation with substantial complexity and high technical requirement,with worse perioperative outcomes compared to MILR for large tumors,therefore judicious patient selection is pivotal.

A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol

BACKGROUND： Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy（LPD）is a safe procedure. Oncological safety of LPD is still a matter for debate. This study aimed to compare the oncological outcomes,in terms of adequacy of resection and recurrence rate following LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy（OPD）.METHODS： Between November 2005 and April 2009, 12LPDs（9 ampullary and 3 distal common bile duct tumors）were performed. A cohort of 12 OPDs were matched for age,gender, body mass index（BMI） and American Society of Anesthesiologists（ASA） score and tumor site.RESULTS： Mean tumor size LPD vs OPD（19.8 vs 19.2 mm,P=0.870）. R0 resection was achieved in 9 LPD vs 8 OPD（P=1.000）. The mean number of metastatic lymph nodes and total number resected for LPD vs OPD were 1.1 vs 2.1（P=0.140）and 20.7 vs 18.5（P=0.534） respectively. Clavien complications grade I/II（5 vs 8）, III/IV（2 vs 6） and pancreatic leak（2 vs 1）were statistically not significant（LPD vs OPD）. The mean high dependency unit（HDU） stay was longer in OPD（3.7 vs 1.4 days,P〈0.001）. There were 2 recurrences each in LPD and OPD（logrank,P=0.983）. Overall mortality for LPD vs OPD was 3 vs 6（log-rank, P=0.283） and recurrence-related mortality was 2 vs 1.There was one death within 30 days in the OPD group secondary to severe sepsis and none in the LPD group.CONCLUSIONS： Compared to open procedure, LPD achieved a similar rate of R0 resection, lymph node harvest and longterm recurrence for tumors less than 2 cm. Though technically challenging, LPD is safe and does not compromise oncological outcome.