Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries: A single institution experience with 150 consecutive procedures in Southeast Asia

• Published in: Journal of minimal access surgery Vol. 16; no. 4; pp. 404 - 410
• Main Authors: Goh, Brian, Low, Tze, Koh, Ye, Lee, Ser, Teo, Jin-Yao, Kam, Juinn, Jeyaraj, Prema, Cheow, Peng-Chung, Chow, Pierce, Ooi, London, Chung, Alexander, Chan, Chung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.10.2020; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: laparoscopic pancreas; laparoscopic pancreatectomy; minimally invasive pancreatectomy; Original; robotic pancreas; robotic pancreatectomy; Surgery; Southeast Asia; robotic pancreas; Laparoscopic pancreas; laparoscopic pancreatectomy; robotic pancreatectomy; minimally invasive pancreatectomy
• ISSN: 0972-9941; 1998-3921
• DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_127_19

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries (MIPS) are increasingly adopted worldwide. However, it remains uncertain if these reported experiences are reproducible throughout the world today. This study examines the safety and evolution of MIPS at a single institution in Southeast Asia. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 150 consecutive patients who underwent MIPS between 2006 and 2018 of which 135 cases (90%) were performed since 2012. To determine the evolution of MIPS, the study population was stratified into 3 equal groups of 50 patients. Comparison was also made between pancreatoduodenectomies (PD), distal pancreatectomies (DP) and other pancreatic surgeries. Results: One hundred and fifty patients underwent MIPS (103 laparoscopic, 45 robotic and 2 hand-assisted). Forty-three patients underwent PD, 93 DP and 14 other MIPS. There were 21 (14.0%) open conversions. There was an exponential increase in caseload over the study period. Comparison across the 3 time periods demonstrated that patients were significantly more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, older, undergo PD and a longer operation time. The conversion rate decreased from 28% to 0% and increased again to 14% across the 3 time periods. Comparison between the various types of MIPS demonstrated that patients who underwent PD were significantly older, more likely to have symptomatic tumours, had longer surgery time, increased blood loss, increased frequency of extended pancreatectomies, increased frequency of hybrid procedures, longer post-operative stay, increased post-operative morbidity rate and increased post-operative major morbidity rate. Conclusion: The case volume of MIPS increased rapidly at our institution over the study period. Furthermore, although the indications for MIPS expanded to include more complex procedures in higher risk patients, there was no change in key perioperative outcomes.