Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a feasible option in selected patients. However, its use has not yet been generalized since it is time-consuming, physically demanding, and technically challenging. It might be essential to share the experience of high-volume centers to understand its use.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 500 consecutive patients who underwent LPD at a single institution between January 2007 and December 2017.

Results

The patients included 272 women and 228 men (mean age, 57.1 years). The most common indication for LPD was intraductal papillary neoplasm (n = 104, 20.8%). Overall and major (Clavien–Dindo grades III–V) complication rates were 37.2% and 4.8%, respectively. Fifty-four patients (10.8%) had clinically relevant (grade B/C) pancreatic fistulas. There were 3 (0.6%) 90-day mortalities. The most common late complication was bilioenteric stricture (25, 5%). Two hundred thirty patients were diagnosed with periampullary cancer. The 5-year overall survival rates of pancreatic cancer, common bile duct cancer, ampulla of Vater cancer, and duodenal cancer were 37.4, 63.2, 78, and 88.9%, respectively. We analyzed learning curves of first-generation and second-generation surgeons. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve of 55 cases for LPD with the first-generation surgeon and earlier competency with the second-generation surgeon.

Conclusions

LPD has the potential to become an alternative surgery to open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors with acceptable outcomes. We could reduce the steep learning curve with structured training, close supervision, and well-trained operation teams. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LPD will be optimized after overcoming the learning curve.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Conrad C et al (2017) Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis. Surg Endosc 31(10):3970–3978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shin SH et al (2015) A comparative study of laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Am Coll Surg 220(2):177–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Khaled YS et al (2018) Matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant lesions. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28(1):47–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maher H et al (2017) The prospective of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer management. Chin Clin Oncol 6(1):8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bassi C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wente MN et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Forbes TL et al (2004) Cumulative sum failure analysis of the learning curve with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 39(1):102–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi DH et al (2009) Learning curves for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy used to manage curable sigmoid colon cancer: single-institute, three-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 23(3):622–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nomi T et al (2015) Learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Br J Surg 102(7):796–804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim CW et al (2015) Learning curve for single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. J Am Coll Surg 221(2):397–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee W et al (2016) Comparison of learning curves for major and minor laparoscopic liver resection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(6):457–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramsay CR et al (2000) Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(4):1095–1108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tomassini F et al (2016) The single surgeon learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection: a continuous evolving process through stepwise difficulties. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(43):e5138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin CW et al (2016) The learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection after the Louisville statement 2008: will it be more effective and smooth? Surg Endosc 30(7):2895–2903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1(1):20–25 discussion 25–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dokmak S et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 220(5):831–838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kendrick ML, Cusati D (2010) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg 145(1):19–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Croome KP et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260(4):633–638 discussion 638–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim SC et al (2013) Short-term clinical outcomes for 100 consecutive cases of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: improvement with surgical experience. Surg Endosc 27(1):95–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boggi U et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29(1):9–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hu BY et al (2016) Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula: analysis of 539 successive cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 22(34):7797–7805

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Akamatsu N et al (2010) Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the significance of the ratio of the main pancreatic duct to the pancreas body as a predictor of leakage. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(3):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Callery MP et al (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(1):1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee HG et al (2010) Management of bleeding from pseudoaneurysms following pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 16(10):1239–1244

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Blanc T et al (2007) Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: when is surgery still indicated? Am J Surg 194(1):3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding X et al (2011) Therapeutic management of hemorrhage from visceral artery pseudoaneurysms after pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):1417–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Treckmann J et al (2008) Sentinel bleeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a disregarded sign. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):313–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Imamura M et al (2016) Effects of antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction for gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 200(1):147–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao Z et al (2017) A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci Rep 7(1):2220

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Reid-Lombardo KM et al (2007) Long-term anastomotic complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign diseases. J Gastrointest Surg 11(12):1704–1711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. House MG et al (2006) Incidence and outcome of biliary strictures after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 243(5):571–576 discussion 576–8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhu JQ et al (2017) Bilioenteric anastomotic stricture in patients with benign and malignant tumors: prevalence, risk factors and treatment. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 16(4):412–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Malgras B et al (2016) Early biliary complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy: prevalence and risk factors. HPB (Oxford) 18(4):367–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mauri G et al (2013) Biodegradable biliary stent implantation in the treatment of benign bilioplastic-refractory biliary strictures: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 23(12):3304–3310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaffes A et al (2014) A randomized trial of a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent versus plastic stents in anastomotic biliary strictures after liver transplantation. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 7(2):64–71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cioffi JL et al (2016) Pancreaticojejunostomy stricture after pancreatoduodenectomy: outcomes after operative revision. J Gastrointest Surg 20(2):293–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Demirjian AN et al (2010) The inconsistent nature of symptomatic pancreatico-jejunostomy anastomotic strictures. HPB (Oxford) 12(7):482–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bai MD et al (2008) Experimental study on operative methods of pancreaticojejunostomy with reference to anastomotic patency and postoperative pancreatic exocrine function. World J Gastroenterol 14(3):441–447

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Torphy RJ et al (2018) Comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy across low and high volume centers. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Senthilnathan P et al (2015) Long-term results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancer-experience of 130 cases from a tertiary-care center in South India. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(4):295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stauffer JA et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 31(5):2233–2241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang M et al (2016) Learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a CUSUM analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):924–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lu C et al (2016) Analysis of learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Vis Surg 2:145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Chedid AD et al (2015) Achieving good perioperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low-volume setting: a 25-year experience. Int Surg 100(4):705–711

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by a grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, South Korea (Grant Number: HI14C2640).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea

    Ki Byung Song, Song Cheol Kim, Woohyung Lee, Dae Wook Hwang, Jae Hoon Lee, Jaewoo Kwon, Yejong Park, Seung Jae Lee & Guisuk Park

Authors
  1. Ki Byung Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Song Cheol Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Woohyung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dae Wook Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jae Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jaewoo Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yejong Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Seung Jae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guisuk Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Song Cheol Kim.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Ki Byung Song, Song Cheol Kim, Woohyung Lee, Dae Wook Hwang, Jae Hoon Lee, Jaewoo Kwon, Guisuk Park, Yejong Park, and Seung Jae Lee have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, K.B., Kim, S.C., Lee, W. et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center. Surg Endosc 34, 1343–1352 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06913-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06913-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation