Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024; 27(3): 138-139
Published online September 15, 2024
https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2024.27.3.138
© The Korean Society of Endo-Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgery
Correspondence to : Seung Jae Lee
Department of Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University of Medicine, 158 Gwanjeodong-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 35365, Korea
E-mail: leesj54gs@kyuh.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3302-6624
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex and technically challenging surgical procedures for periampullary tumors [1]. With advancements in surgical technology and equipment, even the most complex surgeries are increasingly being performed using minimally invasive techniques. Recently, the rise of robotic surgery has led to a significant increase in cases of minimally invasive PD (MIPD) worldwide. However, the outcomes of MIPD remain debatable owing to a lack of well-designed, prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the advantages of this approach.
A recent study entitled “Incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a population-based study” [2] compared the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) between open PD and MIPD. This study employed propensity score matching, and the results indicated that after matching, patients who underwent MIPD experienced higher rates of postoperative morbidities compared to those who underwent open PD. These morbidities included clinically relevant POPF, reoperation, delayed gastric emptying, and readmission. A limitation of this study is the lack of detailed information regarding the surgeon’s experience or the volume of procedures performed at the facilities. This omission suggests that some patients in this study may have been operated on by less experienced surgeons or at low-volume centers. The Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection state that MIPD should be performed only by experienced surgeons at high-volume centers, given the steep learning curve and the difficulty of the procedure [3].
In my opinion, we do not believe that MIPD should be contraindicated based solely on the results of this study, which showed worse surgical outcomes compared to open PD. However, additional research is needed to ensure patient safety, and it may be important to share the experiences of experts and educate young hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeons at the academic society level.
Seung Jae Lee, serving as an Editorial Board member of Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, did not participate in the review process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest pertinent to this article were reported.
None.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024; 27(3): 138-139
Published online September 15, 2024 https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2024.27.3.138
Copyright © The Korean Society of Endo-Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgery.
Department of Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
Correspondence to:Seung Jae Lee
Department of Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University of Medicine, 158 Gwanjeodong-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 35365, Korea
E-mail: leesj54gs@kyuh.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3302-6624
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex and technically challenging surgical procedures for periampullary tumors [1]. With advancements in surgical technology and equipment, even the most complex surgeries are increasingly being performed using minimally invasive techniques. Recently, the rise of robotic surgery has led to a significant increase in cases of minimally invasive PD (MIPD) worldwide. However, the outcomes of MIPD remain debatable owing to a lack of well-designed, prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the advantages of this approach.
A recent study entitled “Incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a population-based study” [2] compared the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) between open PD and MIPD. This study employed propensity score matching, and the results indicated that after matching, patients who underwent MIPD experienced higher rates of postoperative morbidities compared to those who underwent open PD. These morbidities included clinically relevant POPF, reoperation, delayed gastric emptying, and readmission. A limitation of this study is the lack of detailed information regarding the surgeon’s experience or the volume of procedures performed at the facilities. This omission suggests that some patients in this study may have been operated on by less experienced surgeons or at low-volume centers. The Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection state that MIPD should be performed only by experienced surgeons at high-volume centers, given the steep learning curve and the difficulty of the procedure [3].
In my opinion, we do not believe that MIPD should be contraindicated based solely on the results of this study, which showed worse surgical outcomes compared to open PD. However, additional research is needed to ensure patient safety, and it may be important to share the experiences of experts and educate young hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeons at the academic society level.
Seung Jae Lee, serving as an Editorial Board member of Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, did not participate in the review process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest pertinent to this article were reported.
None.