Modified Frailty Index to Assess Risk in Elderly Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Background To compare the postoperative course of elderly patients (≥70 years) submitted to minimally invasive (MIDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and to evaluate if the modified Frailty Index (mFI) predicts the surgical course of elderly patients submitted to DP. Methods Data of patients aged ≥70 who underwent DP at a single institution between March 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. A 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Then, postoperative complications were compared between the two groups (MIDP vs. ODP). Additionally, the entire cohort of DP elderly patients was stratified according to the mFI into three groups: non-frail (mFI = 0), mildly frail (mFI = 1/2), or severely frail (mFI = 3) and then compared. Results A total of 204 patients were analyzed. After PSM, 40 MIDP and 80 ODP patients were identified. The complications considered stratified homogenously between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences. The severity of the postoperative course increased as mFI did among the three groups regarding any complication (p = 0.022), abdominal collection (p = 0.014), pulmonary complication (p = 0.001), postoperative confusion (p = 0.047), Clavien-Dindo severity ≥3 events (p = 0.036), and length of stay (p = 0.018). Conclusions Elderly patients can be safely submitted to MIDP. The mFI identifies frail elderly patients more prone to develop surgical and non-surgical complications after DP.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study

Background. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. Methods. 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. Results. The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group ( P < 0.05 ). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group ( P = 0.002 ), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher ( P < 0.001 ). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. Conclusion. RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Postoperative Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Abutting the Pancreas in the Left Upper Quadrant

BackgroundEn bloc resection of the tumor with adjacent organs is recommended for localized retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). However, resection of the pancreas is controversial because it may cause serious complications, such as pancreatic fistula or bleeding. Thus, we evaluated the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy (DP) in pancreas-abutting RPS of the left upper quadrant (LUQ).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who underwent surgery for RPS between September 2001 and April 2020. We selected 150 patients with all or part of their tumor located in the LUQ on preoperative computed tomography. Eighty-six patients who had tumors abutting the pancreas were finally enrolled in our study.ResultsFifty-three patients (53/86; 61.6%) were included in the non-DP group, and 33 patients (33/86; 38.4%) were included in the DP group. Total postoperative complications and complication rates for those Clavien–Dindo grade 3 or higher were similar between the non-DP group and DP group (p = 0.290 and p = 0.550). In the DP group, grade B pancreatic fistulae occurred in 18.2% (6/33) of patients, but grade C pancreatic fistulae were absent, and microscopic pancreatic invasion was noted in 42.4% (14/33) of patients. During multivariate analysis, microscopic pancreatic invasion was deemed a risk factor for local recurrence (p = 0.029). However, there were no significant differences on preoperative computed tomography findings between the pancreatic invasion and non-invasion groups.ConclusionDP is a reasonable procedure for pancreas-abutting RPS located at the LUQ when both complications and complete resection are considered.