Extended Pancreatic Neck Transection Versus Conventional Pancreatic Neck Transection During Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPDEXCEPT): Protocol for a Multicentre Superiority Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jan 10

PMID 38199635

Authors

Jiaying You

Jing Zhang

He Cai

Xin Wang

Hongjian Wang

Yongbin Li

Chao Yu

Lei Wang

Xu Zhou

Bing Peng

Yunqiang Cai

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains one of the most severe complications of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Theoretically, transecting the pancreatic neck more distally has both advantages (more blood supply, and more central pancreatic duct) and disadvantages (maybe smaller the pancreatic duct) in preventing POPF. This theoretical contradiction pushed us to organise this trial to explore the impact of the level of pancreatic transection in clinical practice. We conduct this randomised trial with the hypothesis that extended pancreatic neck transection has superiority to conventional pancreatic neck transection.

Methods And Analysis: The LPDEXCEPT (Extended pancreatic neck transection versus conventional pancreatic neck transection during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy) trial is a multicentre, randomised-controlled, open-label, superiority trial in 4 centres whose annual surgical volume for LPD is more than 25 cases with pancreatic surgeons who had completed their learning curve. A total of 154 patients who meet the inclusive and exclusive criteria are randomly allocated to the extended pancreatic neck transection group or conventional pancreatic neck transection group in a 1:1 ratio. The stratified randomised block design will be applied, with stratified factors are surgical centre and the diameter of the main pancreatic duct measured by preoperative CT scan (preMPD). The primary outcome is the incidence of the clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

Ethics And Dissemination: Ethics Committee on Biomedical Research of West China Hospital of Sichuan University has approved this trial in March 2023 (approval no. 2023-167). Results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

Trial Registration Number: NCT05808894.

References

Uijterwijk B, Kasai M, Lemmers D, Chinnusamy P, van Hilst J, Ielpo B . The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023; 408(1):311. PMC: 10427526. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4. View

Budzynski J, Tojek K, Czerniak B, Banaszkiewicz Z . Scores of nutritional risk and parameters of nutritional status assessment as predictors of in-hospital mortality and readmissions in the general hospital population. Clin Nutr. 2016; 35(6):1464-1471. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.03.025. View

Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner U, Busch O, Coratti A, DHondt M . Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study. Ann Surg. 2018; 271(2):356-363. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002850. View

Schuh F, Mihaljevic A, Probst P, Trudeau M, Muller P, Marchegiani G . A Simple Classification of Pancreatic Duct Size and Texture Predicts Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A classification of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. Ann Surg. 2021; 277(3):e597-e608. PMC: 9891297. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004855. View

Sattari S, Sattari A, Makary M, Hu C, He J . Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2022; 277(5):742-755. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005785. View

Strasberg S, McNevin M . Results of a technique of pancreaticojejunostomy that optimizes blood supply to the pancreas. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 187(6):591-6. DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00243-9. View

Yamamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Nara S, Esaki M, Shimada K, Kosuge T . A preoperative predictive scoring system for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2011; 35(12):2747-55. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1253-x. View

Chan A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Laupacis A, Gotzsche P, Krleza-Jeric K . SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(3):200-7. PMC: 5114123. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583. View

Skandalakis L, Rowe Jr J, Gray S, SKANDALAKIS J . Surgical embryology and anatomy of the pancreas. Surg Clin North Am. 1993; 73(4):661-97. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6109(16)46080-9. View

10.

Pfister M, Probst P, Muller P, Antony P, Klotz R, Kalkum E . Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BJS Open. 2023; 7(2). PMC: 10040400. DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad007. View

11.

Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F, Shen M, Tian R, Shi C . Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30(12):5173-5184. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4864-3. View

12.

El Nakeeb A, Salah T, Sultan A, El Hemaly M, Askr W, Ezzat H . Pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Risk factors, clinical predictors, and management (single center experience). World J Surg. 2013; 37(6):1405-18. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-1998-5. View

13.

Strasberg S, Drebin J, Mokadam N, Green D, Jones K, Ehlers J . Prospective trial of a blood supply-based technique of pancreaticojejunostomy: effect on anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure. J Am Coll Surg. 2002; 194(6):746-58; discussion 759-60. DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01202-4. View

14.

Chiorean E, Del Chiaro M, Tempero M, Malafa M, Benson A, Cardin D . Ampullary Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023; 21(7):753-782. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0034. View

15.

Lapshyn H, Petruch N, Thomaschewski M, Sondermann S, May K, Frohneberg L . A simple preoperative stratification tool predicting the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreatology. 2021; 21(5):957-964. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.03.009. View

16.

Uijterwijk B, Wei K, Kasai M, Ielpo B, van Hilst J, Chinnusamy P . Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023; 49(8):1351-1361. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.03.227. View

17.

Bardol T, Delicque J, Hermida M, Herrero A, Guiu B, Fabre J . Neck transection level and postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective cohort study of 195 patients. Int J Surg. 2020; 82:43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.001. View

18.

Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M . The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery. 2017; 161(3):584-591. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014. View

19.

Li Y, Cai Y, Wang X, Meng L, Cai H, Xu J . [Optimization of Operative Procedure in Total Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (with Video)]. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020; 51(4):446-452. DOI: 10.12182/20200760108. View

20.

de Rooij T, Lu M, Steen M, Gerhards M, Dijkgraaf M, Busch O . Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Cohort and Registry Studies. Ann Surg. 2016; 264(2):257-67. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001660. View