Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the transection plan on postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main complication of distal pancreatectomy (DP) and affects the prognosis of patients. The impact of several clinical factors mentioned in recent studies on POPF remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a remnant pancreas and other perioperative factors on POPFs occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms.

Methods

A total of 197 patients who received robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms at the Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from January 2018 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. According to the intraoperative transection plan, patients were divided into an RDP body group and an RDP tail group. Clinical and pathological features and perioperative factors affecting POPF were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

Results

The results showed that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas (OR = 2.133, 95% CI 1.109–4.103, p = 0.023) and spleen preservation (OR = 2.588, 95% CI 1.435–4.665, p = 0.001) independently increased the incidence of POPF in patients with nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms treated by RDP. A transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas was also an independent risk factor (OR = 3.464, 95% CI 1.270–9.450, p = 0.015) for grade B/C POPF. Length of remnant pancreas > 6.23 cm was an independent risk factor for POPF (OR = 3.116, 95% CI 1.364–7.121, p = 0.007). Length of remnant pancreas > 9.82 cm was an independent risk factor for grade B/C POPF (OR = 3.340, 95% CI 1.386–8.051, p = 0.007).

Conclusion

This retrospective study suggests that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas is an independent risk factor for POPF in patients with nonmalignant neoplasms treated by RDP. We also propose that the postoperative length of the remnant pancreas evaluated by computed tomography scans can be used to identify patients with a high risk of POPF in order to optimize the individualized strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burk KS, Knipp D, Sahani DV (2018) Cystic pancreatic tumors. Magn Reson Imaging C 26:405–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Grady HL, Conlon KC (2008) Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 34:324–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Imamura T, Yamamoto Y, Sugiura T (2021) Reconsidering the optimal regional lymph node station according to tumor location for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 28:1602–1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhou J, Lv Z, Zou H (2020) Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 99:e20435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Miao Y, Lu Z, Yeo CJ (2020) Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: Expert consensus guidelines by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 168:72–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tomasello G, Ghidini M, Costanzo A (2019) Outcome of head compared to body and tail pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 93 studies. J Gastrointest Oncol 10:259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Galchina YS, Karmazanovsky GG, Kondratyev EV (2020) Contrast-enhanced computed tomography in evaluation of pancreatic stump volume in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova 31

  9. Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada K (2021) Division of the pancreas at the neck reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: comparison of pancreatic division at the body. Pancreatology 21:480–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Klupp F, Klauss M, Rahbari NN (2020) Volume changes of the pancreatic head remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 167:455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakamura H, Murakami Y, Uemura K (2011) Reduced pancreatic parenchymal thickness indicates exocrine pancreatic insufficiency after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Surg Res 171:473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klompmaker S, van der Vliet WJ, Thoolen SJ (2021) Procedure-specific training for robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy. Ann Surg 274:e18–e27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pendola F, Gadde R, Ripat C (2017) Distal pancreatectomy for benign and low grade malignant tumors: short-term postoperative outcomes of spleen preservation—a systematic review and update meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 115:137–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N (1996) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 120:885–890

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weng Y, Jin J, Huo Z (2021) Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study. Surg Endosc 35:2255–2264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tempero MA (2019) NCCN guidelines updates: pancreatic cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:603–605

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bardol T, Delicque J, Hermida M (2020) Neck transection level and postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 195 patients. Int J Surg 82:43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Iacono C, Verlato G, Ruzzenente A (2013) Systematic review of central pancreatectomy and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy. Brit J Surg 100:873–885

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lu X, Wang X, Fang Y (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of pancreatic amylase value on postoperative day 1 after pancreatic resection to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula. Medicine 95:e2569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shi Y, Wang W, Qiu W (2021) Learning curve from 450 cases of robot-assisted pancreaticoduocectomy in a high-volume pancreatic center. Ann Surg 274:e1277–e1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang S, Shyr B, Chen S (2018) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: comparison of spleen-preservation by the Warshaw technique and splenectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 14:e1922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lai EC, Tang CN (2013) Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:158–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Djuric-Stefanovic A, Masulovic D, Kostic J (2012) CT volumetry of normal pancreas: correlation with the pancreatic diameters measurable by the cross-sectional imaging, and relationship with the gender, age, and body constitution. Surg Radiol Anat 34:811–817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Antoniou EA, Damaskos C, Garmpis N (2017) Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a single-center experience and review of the literature. In Vivo 31:501–510

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hasan A, Visrodia K, Farrell JJ (2019) Overview and comparison of guidelines for management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms. World J Gastroentero 25:4405–4413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Royall NA, Walsh RM (2017) Robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy: rationale and technical considerations. J Vis Surg 3:135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peng Y, Zhu X, Yin L (2017) Risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients after distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep UK 7:185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ecker BL, Mcmillan MT, Allegrini V (2019) Risk factors and mitigation strategies for pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Ann Surg 269:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nagakawa Y, Sahara Y, Hosokawa Y (2017) The straightened splenic vessels method improves surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Digest Surg 34:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Karabicak I, Satoi S, Yanagimoto H (2017) Comparison of surgical outcomes of three different stump closure techniques during distal pancreatectomy. Pancreatology 17:497–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hua Y, Javed AA, Burkhart RA (2017) Preoperative risk factors for conversion and learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 162:1040–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shi Y, Jin J, Qiu W (2020) Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. Jama Surg 155:389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kanda M, Fujii T, Suenaga M (2014) Estimated pancreatic parenchymal remnant volume accurately predicts clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery 156:601–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Umezaki N, Hashimoto D, Nakagawa S (2018) Number of acinar cells at the pancreatic stump predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today 48:790–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Søreide K, Labori KJ (2016) Risk factors and preventive strategies for post-operative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery: a comprehensive review. Scand J Gastroentero 51:1147–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nishikawa M, Yamamoto J, Hoshikawa M (2020) Stapler sizes optimized for pancreatic thickness can reduce pancreatic fistula incidence after distal pancreatectomy. Surg Today 50:623–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Melloul E, Lassen K, Roulin D (2020) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreatoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) recommendations 2019. World J Surg 44:2056–2084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kawaida H, Kono H, Hosomura N (2019) Surgical techniques and postoperative management to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. World J Gastroentero 25:3722–3737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Acher AW, Stahl C, Barrett JR (2021) Clinical and cost profile of controlled grade b postoperative pancreatic fistula: rationale for their consideration as low risk. J Gastrointest Surg 25:2336–2343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goess R, Ceyhan GO, Friess H (2016) Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreatic surgery. Panminerva Med 58:151–159

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kipp JP, Olesen SS, Mark EB (2019) Normal pancreatic volume in adults is influenced by visceral fat, vertebral body width and age. Abdom Radiol 44:958–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Guangci Clinical Technology Sailing Project (YW20210033).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lihan Qian, Binwei Hu and Jiancheng Wang have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Lihan Qian, Binwei Hu, Jiancheng Wang, Xiongxiong Lu, Xiaxing Deng, Zhiwei Xu, Weishen Wang & Baiyong Shen

  2. Research Institute of Pancreatic Disease, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Lihan Qian, Binwei Hu, Jiancheng Wang, Xiongxiong Lu, Xiaxing Deng, Zhiwei Xu, Weishen Wang & Baiyong Shen

  3. State Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China

    Lihan Qian, Binwei Hu, Jiancheng Wang, Xiongxiong Lu, Xiaxing Deng, Zhiwei Xu, Weishen Wang & Baiyong Shen

  4. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Weimin Chai

Authors
  1. Lihan Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Binwei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiancheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiongxiong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaxing Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Weimin Chai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhiwei Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Weishen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Baiyong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LQ, BW, and CW: study conception, writing of the manuscript, and creation of tables. LQ, BW, and XL: design and drawing of figures. LQ, BW, CW, XL, MC: acquisition and arrangement of data. LQ, BW, CW, XD and WW: analysis of data. WX, WW, and BS: critical revision.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhiwei Xu, Weishen Wang or Baiyong Shen.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Lihan Qian, Binwei Hu, Jiancheng Wang, Xiongxiong Lu, Xiaxing Deng, Weimin Chai, Zhiwei Xu, Weishen Wang, and Baiyong Shen have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qian, L., Hu, B., Wang, J. et al. Impact of the transection plan on postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms. Surg Endosc 37, 309–318 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09489-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09489-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation