Background: s/Aims: To determine short-term and long-term outcomes after pancreas preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD). Methods: A case series and a complementary meta-analysis were conducted. All patients with (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum who underwent PPTD in a tertiary center for pancreatic surgery between May 2009 and October 2022 were included for the case series.All studies in the literature with a sample size of 10 or more patients reporting outcomes of PPTD were included for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 439 patients (18 from case series and 421 from literature) were analyzed. Clavien-Dindo (CD) I complications in 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%–5.2%), CD II complications in 21.1% (14.6%–27.6%), CD III complications in 18.1% (9.3%–26.9%), CD IV complications in 2.7% (0.5%–4.9%), and CD V complications in 2.2% (0.2%–4.2%) of patients were found. Probabilities of overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 15 years were 87% and 86%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, p = 0.830), total complications (OR: 0.77, p = 0.440), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.43, p = 0.140), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.70, p = 0.450), or postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.97, p = 0.960) between PPTD and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Conclusions PPTD is safe and feasible for (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum not involving the pancreatic head. The risk of severe complications (CD > III) is low and long-term outcomes are favorable. Whether PPTD provides advantages over more radical techniques in terms of long-term outcomes remains controversial and requires further research.

Background: s/Aims: To determine short-term and long-term outcomes after pancreas preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD). Methods: A case series and a complementary meta-analysis were conducted. All patients with (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum who underwent PPTD in a tertiary center for pancreatic surgery between May 2009 and October 2022 were included for the case series.All studies in the literature with a sample size of 10 or more patients reporting outcomes of PPTD were included for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 439 patients (18 from case series and 421 from literature) were analyzed. Clavien-Dindo (CD) I complications in 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%–5.2%), CD II complications in 21.1% (14.6%–27.6%), CD III complications in 18.1% (9.3%–26.9%), CD IV complications in 2.7% (0.5%–4.9%), and CD V complications in 2.2% (0.2%–4.2%) of patients were found. Probabilities of overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 15 years were 87% and 86%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, p = 0.830), total complications (OR: 0.77, p = 0.440), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.43, p = 0.140), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.70, p = 0.450), or postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.97, p = 0.960) between PPTD and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Conclusions PPTD is safe and feasible for (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum not involving the pancreatic head. The risk of severe complications (CD > III) is low and long-term outcomes are favorable. Whether PPTD provides advantages over more radical techniques in terms of long-term outcomes remains controversial and requires further research.

Background: s/Aims: To determine short-term and long-term outcomes after pancreas preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD). Methods: A case series and a complementary meta-analysis were conducted. All patients with (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum who underwent PPTD in a tertiary center for pancreatic surgery between May 2009 and October 2022 were included for the case series.All studies in the literature with a sample size of 10 or more patients reporting outcomes of PPTD were included for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 439 patients (18 from case series and 421 from literature) were analyzed. Clavien-Dindo (CD) I complications in 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%–5.2%), CD II complications in 21.1% (14.6%–27.6%), CD III complications in 18.1% (9.3%–26.9%), CD IV complications in 2.7% (0.5%–4.9%), and CD V complications in 2.2% (0.2%–4.2%) of patients were found. Probabilities of overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 15 years were 87% and 86%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, p = 0.830), total complications (OR: 0.77, p = 0.440), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.43, p = 0.140), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.70, p = 0.450), or postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.97, p = 0.960) between PPTD and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Conclusions PPTD is safe and feasible for (pre)neoplastic lesions of duodenum not involving the pancreatic head. The risk of severe complications (CD > III) is low and long-term outcomes are favorable. Whether PPTD provides advantages over more radical techniques in terms of long-term outcomes remains controversial and requires further research.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.