Open and minimally invasive pancreatic neoplasms enucleation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic enucleation (pEN) as parenchyma-sparing procedure for small pancreatic neoplasms is quickly becoming the most common surgical option in such setting. Nowadays, pEN is frequently carried out through a minimally invasive approach either laparoscopic or robotic. Its impact on overall perioperative complications and pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still under evaluation. The scope of our systematic review is to assess pEN's perioperative outcomes and to evaluate the effect of the minimally invasive techniques over POPF and other surgical complications.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search (time-frame January 1999-September 2018), considering exclusively those studies which included at least 5 cases of either open or minimally invasive pEN. Data regarding postoperative outcome and POPF were extracted and analyzed. We defined postoperative morbidities by the Clavien-Dindo classification while POPF according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met the criteria selected, accounting for a study population of 2485 patients. 27.7% had a minimally invasive pEN. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 46.1% with 11.9% rated as severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). Mortality rate was 0.69%. The minimally invasive approach to pEN led to a statistically significant reduction of both the overall POPF rate (28.7% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001), and clinically significant B-C POPF (p < 0.027). The postoperative overall morbidity rate was clearly in favor of the minimally invasive approach (27.6% vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review confirms that pEN is a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of small benign or low-grade pancreatic neoplasms and it can be implemented with an acceptable morbidity rate along with low mortality. The minimally invasive approach is gaining widespread acceptance due to its supposed non-inferiority compared with the traditional open approach. In our review, it showed to be even better in terms of POPF incidence rate and short-term postoperative outcome. Still, such data need to be corroborated by randomized clinical trials.