Bjørn Edwin1,2,3, Mushegh A Sahakyan4,5, Mohammad Abu Hilal6, Marc G Besselink7, Marco Braga8, Jean-Michel Fabre9, Laureano Fernández-Cruz10, Brice Gayet11,12, Song Cheol Kim13, Igor E Khatkov14,15. 1. The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, 0027, Norway. 2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Billiary Sugery, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway. 4. The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, 0027, Norway. sahakyan.mushegh@gmail.com. 5. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. sahakyan.mushegh@gmail.com. 6. University Hospital Southampton, NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 7. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 9. Department of Digestive Surgery, Hospital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France. 10. Department of Surgery, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 11. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 12. Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et Robotique (ISIR), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France. 13. Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 14. Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia. 15. Faculty of Surgery No. 2, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients. METHODS: An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey. RESULTS: LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.
BACKGROUND: Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients. METHODS: An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey. RESULTS:LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe. CONCLUSIONS:LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ser Yee Lee; Peter J Allen; Eran Sadot; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; T Peter Kingham Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Aggelos Laliotis; Jack Martin; Tim R Worthington; Michele Marshall; Alberto M Isla Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter Nau; W Scott Melvin; Vimal K Narula; P Mark Bloomston; E Christopher Ellison; Peter Muscarella Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Michele Mazzola; Alessandro Giani; Jacopo Crippa; Lorenzo Morini; Andrea Zironda; Camillo Leonardo Bertoglio; Paolo De Martini; Carmelo Magistro; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-16
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Piotr Major; Jan Witowski; Beata Kuśnierz-Cabala; Piotr Ceranowicz; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.064