**3**

## **Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery**

Jin-Young Jang

*Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea* 

#### **1. Introduction**

28 Advances in Laparoscopic Surgery

skills. Every gallbladder should be dealt with as if the surgeon, regardless of the experience, is operating on the first gallbladder. The general principles in laparoscopy and the critical view of safety should always be born in mind. The theatre staff especially the cameraman should be properly trained. The instruments should be quite friendly and a surplus of them should be available. The surgeon should have had a good amount of experience with simple gallbladders before handling the difficult ones. With the advent of gratifying improvements in the imaging technology, instrumentation and innovative techniques, the difficult gallbladders now fall in the domain of simple surgeries. However, the intrinsic error in the surgical technique cannot be avoided and whenever it comes onto that, open approach

[1] Mushtaq Chalkoo.,2009. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Mucocele of

[2] Jorgensen JO, Hunt DR. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis of the potential causes of failure. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993 Feb;3(1):49-53. [3] Patel M, Smart D. Aust N Z J Surg. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and previous

[5] K. Michalowski, P. C. Bornman, Professor J. E. J. Krige, P. J. Gallagher, J. Terblanche.

[7] Puia IC, Vlad L, Iancu C, Al-Hajjar N, Pop F, Bălă O, Munteanu D. Chirurgia (Bucur).

[8] Polk HC Jr. carcinoma and the calcified gallbladder. Gastroenterology 1966;50:

cholecystitis or fibrosis. Volume 85, Issue 7, pages 904–906, July 1998 [6] Nadu A, Gallili Y, Soffer D, Kluger Y. J Trauma. Disruption of cholecystoenteric fistula

abdominal surgery: a safe technique. 1996 May;66(5):309-11 [4] Palanivelu C., 2007. Art of laparoscopic surgery. Ist ed. New Delhi: Jaypee.

induced by minor blunt trauma. 1996 Nov;41(5):914-5.

Gallbladderwith a Phrygian Cap- A Case Report,[online]. Available at: web

http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8&q=phyicians+acade

Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy in patients with complicated acute

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for porcelain gallbladder. 2005 Mar-Apr;100(2):

should always be given a weightage.

my+online+mushtaq+chalkoo

**6. References** 

address:

187-9.

582-5.

Pancreatic surgery has higher morbidity and mortality than other forms of gastrointestinal tract surgery, due to associated problems like pancreatic fistula formation and loss of pancreatic function. Until recently laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas was limited to laparoscopic staging or to the evaluation of periampullary cancer for detecting small metastatic nodules or local invasion (Jang et al., 2007; Schachter et al., 2000). Advances in laparoscopic techniques and instrumentation have expanded the role of laparoscopic surgery to a degree that could not have been imagined such as Whipple's procedure (Gagner & Gentileschi, 2001).

Recent reports on laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas are encouraging and support the advantages of laparoscopy. We believe that well selected enucleation and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, with or without spleen preservation, are acceptable and recommendable for the treatment of benign or low grade malignant diseases of the pancreas. Moreover, surgeons and laparoscopic industries have developed new techniques and devices that increase convenience, ease, and safety of complicated laparoscopic surgeries, and these efforts will undoubtedly increase the role of laparoscopic or minimal invasive surgery for the treatment of pancreatic disease.

In this chapter, we will discuss the current status of the laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and the role of its associated procedures for the treatment of pancreatic disease.

#### **2. Pancreatic resection**

#### **2.1 Distal pancreatectomy**

Although laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is considered to be an advanced and demanding procedure, many surgeons have tried laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy due to its technical simplicity and its avoidance of the need for anastomosis as compared with other difficult pancreatectomy (Table 1) (Weber et al., 2009; Mabrut et al., 2005; Melotti et al., 2007; Vijan et al., 2010; Fernandez-Cruz et al., 2007; Røsok et al., 2010; DiNorcia et al., 2010; Jayaraman et al., 2010; Kooby et al., 2008; Song et al., 2011; Velanovich, 2006; Misawa et al., 2007; Teh et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Eom et al., 2008; Nakamura et al., 2009).

Most of reports demonstrate the feasibility of laparoscopic approach with acceptable morbidity (10~30%) and nearly no mortality.

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 31

According to several reports comparing the clinical results of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery, no statistical differences were found in terms of operation time, morbidity, or recurrence. However, mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open surgery group (Table 2) ( Vijan et al., 2010; Kooby et al., 2008; Velanovich, 2006; Misawa et al., 2007; Teh et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Eom et al.,

We could conclude that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a safe and feasible method equivalent to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of early and late outcome for benign and borderline lesions of pancreas such as pancreas cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors. Considering superior cosmetic results and early functional recovery, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be treatment of choice in most of non-cancerous diseases

The role of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Many pancreatic surgeons worry about the oncological safety of laparoscopic pancreatectomy in relation to surgical margin, retroperitoneal clearance, and

Several reports showed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy provided similar short- and long-term oncologic outcomes as compared with open surgery, with potentially shorter hospital stay even in pancreatic cancer. These results suggest that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable approach for resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the left pancreas in selected patients (Kooby & Chu, 2010; Dulucq et al., 2005;

Although the result of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer seems to be favorable in limited cases, we must wait for more long term results to reach a conclusion on

Spleen preservation and method of preservation are important issues of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and surgeons showed diverse preferences for surgical method (Table 1). Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy was introduced by Mallet et al. in 1943 (Mallet & Vachon, 1943), and as knowledge of the immunologic role of spleen increased, efforts to

According to the recently published data, 15~70% of distal pancreatectomies were performed preserving spleen (Table 1). Two techniques are employed during spleenpreserving operations. The first involves splenic artery and vein transection such that the left gastroepiploic vessels and short left gastric vessels will supply the spleen (Warshaw's technique) (Warshaw, 1997), whereas in the second the splenic artery and vein are preserved

This second method demands more advanced instrumentation and skill in terms of dividing the transverse branches of splenic vessels and has a risk of left-sided portal hypertension if

Whereas Warshaw's technique is technically easy and requires shorter operative time (Kaneko et al., 2004; Mori et al., 2005), it may result in splenic infarction and splenic abscess

conserve the organ have intensified (Robey et al., 1982; Yamaguchi et al., 2001).

retrieval of peripancreatic lymph node (Kubota, 2011; Kooby & Chu, 2010).

oncological safety of laparoscopic resection for pancreatic cancer.

the splenic vein becomes occluded after surgery (Yoon et al., 2009).

formation due to insufficient blood flow to the spleen (Warshaw, 1997).

2008; Nakamura et al., 2009).

located at pancreas body and tail.

Kooby et al., 2010).

(Figure 1).


a With splenic preservation

b With splenectomy

N/A (Not Available Values)

Table 1. Recently published reports of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy


Table 2. Comparisons of laparoscopic and Open distal pancreatectomy

**Length of Stay (day)** 

Weber, 2009 219 Y 219 245 2.6 10 34 39 23 0

Melotti, 2007 58 Y 165 N/A 9 0 55 53 27.5 0 Vijan, 2010 100 N 214 171 6.1 4 25 34 17 3

Kooby, 2008 167 Y 230 357 5.9 13 31 40 11 0 Song, 2011 359 N 195 N/A 8 N/A 49.6 12 7 0

> **Splenic Preservation (%)**

The, 2007 12 16 278 212 193 609 62 17 6.2 10.6 17 56 8 6 0 0 Kim, 2008 93 35 195 190 110 110 40.8 5.7 10 16 25 29 8.6 14.3 0 0

Eom, 2008 31 62 218 195 N/A N/A 42 N/A 11.5 13.5 36 24 9.7 6.5 0 0

**Length of Stay (day)** 

LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP LDP ODP

15 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 5.0 8.0 20 27 13 13 0 0

8 9 255 205 14 307 12.5 0 10.0 16.0 N/A N/A 0 22 0 0

14 19 291 213 247 400 7 N/A 12.9 23.8 N/A N/A 0 110.5 0 0

21 16 308 282 249 714 35 31 10.0 25.8 0 19 0 12.5 0 0

107 236 163 193 150 350 21 14 5 7 27 40 15 13 0 2

142 200 230 216 357 588 30 12 5.9 9.0 40 57 11 18 0 1

82 N N/A N/A 7 7 64 20 9 0

95 N 250 150 5 25.3 15.5 28.2 11.3 0

107 N 193 150 5 30 21 20 15 0

**Conversi on Rate (%)** 

**Splenic Preservati on (%)** 

N/A 7 10 71 53 16 0

5 7.5 32 16.5 10 N/A

**Overall Morbidity (%)** 

**Pancreatic Fistula Rate (%)** 

**Mortality (%)** 

**Overall Morbidity (%)** 

**Pancreatic Fistula Rate (%)** 

**Mortality (%)** 

**Study Cases Multi-**

Fernandez-Cruz, 2007

DiNorcia, 2010

Jayaraman, 2010

Velanovich, 2006

Misawa, 2007

Matsumoto, 2008

Nakamura, 2009

Jayaraman, 2010

Kooby, 2008

a With splenic preservation b With splenectomy N/A (Not Available Values)

**Study Cases Mean** 

Mabrut, 2005 96 Y 200a

Rosok, 2010 117 N 185.5a

**Institutional** 

**Mean Operative Time (min)** 

195b

210b

**Operative Time (min)** 

**Mean Blood Loss (mL)** 

200a 100b

Table 1. Recently published reports of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

**Mean Blood Loss (mL)** 

Table 2. Comparisons of laparoscopic and Open distal pancreatectomy

According to several reports comparing the clinical results of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery, no statistical differences were found in terms of operation time, morbidity, or recurrence. However, mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open surgery group (Table 2) ( Vijan et al., 2010; Kooby et al., 2008; Velanovich, 2006; Misawa et al., 2007; Teh et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Eom et al., 2008; Nakamura et al., 2009).

We could conclude that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a safe and feasible method equivalent to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of early and late outcome for benign and borderline lesions of pancreas such as pancreas cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors. Considering superior cosmetic results and early functional recovery, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be treatment of choice in most of non-cancerous diseases located at pancreas body and tail.

The role of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Many pancreatic surgeons worry about the oncological safety of laparoscopic pancreatectomy in relation to surgical margin, retroperitoneal clearance, and retrieval of peripancreatic lymph node (Kubota, 2011; Kooby & Chu, 2010).

Several reports showed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy provided similar short- and long-term oncologic outcomes as compared with open surgery, with potentially shorter hospital stay even in pancreatic cancer. These results suggest that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable approach for resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the left pancreas in selected patients (Kooby & Chu, 2010; Dulucq et al., 2005; Kooby et al., 2010).

Although the result of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer seems to be favorable in limited cases, we must wait for more long term results to reach a conclusion on oncological safety of laparoscopic resection for pancreatic cancer.

Spleen preservation and method of preservation are important issues of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and surgeons showed diverse preferences for surgical method (Table 1). Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy was introduced by Mallet et al. in 1943 (Mallet & Vachon, 1943), and as knowledge of the immunologic role of spleen increased, efforts to conserve the organ have intensified (Robey et al., 1982; Yamaguchi et al., 2001).

According to the recently published data, 15~70% of distal pancreatectomies were performed preserving spleen (Table 1). Two techniques are employed during spleenpreserving operations. The first involves splenic artery and vein transection such that the left gastroepiploic vessels and short left gastric vessels will supply the spleen (Warshaw's technique) (Warshaw, 1997), whereas in the second the splenic artery and vein are preserved (Figure 1).

This second method demands more advanced instrumentation and skill in terms of dividing the transverse branches of splenic vessels and has a risk of left-sided portal hypertension if the splenic vein becomes occluded after surgery (Yoon et al., 2009).

Whereas Warshaw's technique is technically easy and requires shorter operative time (Kaneko et al., 2004; Mori et al., 2005), it may result in splenic infarction and splenic abscess formation due to insufficient blood flow to the spleen (Warshaw, 1997).

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 33

AMP, ampullary adenocarcinoma/ampullary dysplastic adenoma; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; DA, duodenal adenocarcinoma; CA,

mucinous cystadenocarcinoma;; N/A, not reported; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; PNET, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor Table 3. Published reports of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

Black arrow: preserved splenic artery White arrow: preserved splenic vein

Fig. 1. Laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy.

#### **2.2 Pancreatoduodenectomy**

Although laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was introduced at 1994 by Dr. Gagner (Gagner & Pomp, 1994), this procedure is still technically challenging.

There have been limited case reports on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (Table 3) (Gagner & Pomp, 1997; Staudacher et al., 2005; Dulucq et al., 2006; Palanivelu et al., 2007; Pugliese et al., 2008; Cho et al., 2009; Kendrick & Cusati, 2010), and some surgeons advocate its safety and feasibility. However, lack of tactile sensation, difficulties in localizing lesions, and the anatomic complexity of peripancreatic organs to make laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy difficult (Cuschieri, 1996).

Even Dr. Gagner, the initiator of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, concluded that this procedure offers no advantage in terms of patient outcome and may be associated with increased morbidity (Gagner & Pomp, 1997). Nevertheless, laparoscopic experience has allowed some surgeons to claim promising results for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (Gagner & Pomp, 1997; Staudacher et al., 2005; Dulucq et al., 2006; Palanivelu et al., 2007; Pugliese et al., 2008; Cho et al., 2009; Kendrick & Cusati, 2010; Cuschieri, 1996).

However, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy has many pitfalls. Pancreatoduodenectomy itself requires meticulous anastomosis to reduce morbidities associated with pancreatic leakage, and adequate dissection to remove diseased tissue including lymph nodes and nerve plexus. Small operative windows cannot highlight the merit of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatoduodenectomy because of the long operation time and high morbidity due to pancreato-enteric anastomosis.

On the other hand, it can be expected that technical advances, like robotic surgery (Makary, 2011; Horiguchi et al., 2011), will continue to make pancreatoduodenectomy by minimal invasive surgery more feasible and safe.


AMP, ampullary adenocarcinoma/ampullary dysplastic adenoma; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; DA, duodenal adenocarcinoma; CA,mucinous cystadenocarcinoma;; N/A, not reported; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; PNET, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor Table 3. Published reports of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

#### Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 33

32 Advances in Laparoscopic Surgery

Although laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was introduced at 1994 by Dr. Gagner

There have been limited case reports on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (Table 3) (Gagner & Pomp, 1997; Staudacher et al., 2005; Dulucq et al., 2006; Palanivelu et al., 2007; Pugliese et al., 2008; Cho et al., 2009; Kendrick & Cusati, 2010), and some surgeons advocate its safety and feasibility. However, lack of tactile sensation, difficulties in localizing lesions, and the anatomic complexity of peripancreatic organs to make laparoscopic

Even Dr. Gagner, the initiator of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, concluded that this procedure offers no advantage in terms of patient outcome and may be associated with increased morbidity (Gagner & Pomp, 1997). Nevertheless, laparoscopic experience has allowed some surgeons to claim promising results for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (Gagner & Pomp, 1997; Staudacher et al., 2005; Dulucq et al., 2006; Palanivelu et al., 2007;

However, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy has many pitfalls. Pancreatoduodenectomy itself requires meticulous anastomosis to reduce morbidities associated with pancreatic leakage, and adequate dissection to remove diseased tissue including lymph nodes and nerve plexus. Small operative windows cannot highlight the merit of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatoduodenectomy because of the long operation time and high morbidity

On the other hand, it can be expected that technical advances, like robotic surgery (Makary, 2011; Horiguchi et al., 2011), will continue to make pancreatoduodenectomy by minimal

Pugliese et al., 2008; Cho et al., 2009; Kendrick & Cusati, 2010; Cuschieri, 1996).

Black arrow: preserved splenic artery White arrow: preserved splenic vein

**2.2 Pancreatoduodenectomy** 

Fig. 1. Laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy.

pancreatoduodenectomy difficult (Cuschieri, 1996).

due to pancreato-enteric anastomosis.

invasive surgery more feasible and safe.

(Gagner & Pomp, 1994), this procedure is still technically challenging.

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 35

The yield of laparoscopy for the detection of metastatic disease, especially of small peritoneal lesions that have not been detected by imaging modalities, ranges from 15 to 46% (Jimenez et al., 2000; Menack et al., 2001; Minnard et al., 1998; Velasco et al., 1998; Liu & Traverso, 2005). Recent studies have shown lower yields for laparoscopy than for improved non invasive imaging modalities like multi detector CT. The yield of laparoscopy alone is clearly impaired by its inability to detect locally advanced or intra-parenchymal liver disease. To overcome this obvious limitation, laparoscopic ultrasound has been added to laparoscopic staging, and this leads to a marked increase in yield and accuracy (Dulucq et al., 2006). Studies comparing laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound with radiological staging modalities have produced controversial results. However, several studies have found that laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound are more accurate than contrast-

In contrast, three large studies using contrast-enhanced multi-detector CT imaging as a baseline radiological investigation were unable to confirm this, and found yields as low as 10-15% and accuracies of 35-56% for laparoscopy (Nieveen van Dijkum et al., 2003; Brooks et al., 2002). Despite the use of a pre-operative staging algorithm including laparoscopic ultrasound, up to 20% of patients were still found to be unresectable at the time of laparotomy, mainly because of local invasion (Talamini et al., 1998). Moreover, as diagnostic yields have fallen, due to improvements in non-invasive imaging, the additional costs of laparoscopy have been called into question, particularly since it requires separate anesthesia. Thus, at present, laparoscopy has a limited role in the staging of peri-pancreatic

The role of surgery in the management of acute pancreatitis is markedly being reduced because less invasive intervention and intensive medical care are evolving. Although some clinicians advocate a non surgical approach even in cases of infected necrotizing pancreatitis, due to the improved results of medical or interventional treatment (Chang et al., 2006), current indications for surgery in pancreatitis are infected necrotizing pancreatitis,

The treatment of infected necrosis has changed dramatically during the last few years, and a multimodality approach has emerged, where a combination of several techniques are used in a single patient, and the risks of intervention are weighed against the need for adequate

Minimally invasive surgery has consistently been shown to be associated with reduced inflammatory response activation than equivalent open surgery, and some evidence suggests that local sepsis and inflammatory response may also be lessened by minimally invasive surgery. It has been suggested that by minimizing the massive inflammatory injury associated with open pancreatic necrosectomy, a minimally invasive approach to the management of infected pancreatic necrosis may lessen the risk of multiple organ failure, and reduce respiratory and wound morbidity in necrotizing pancreatitis (Garden, 2005; Parekh, 2006).

The laparoscopic approach depends on the localization of pancreatic necrosis. The alternatives are an intraperitoneal approach, direct entry of the retroperitoneal space, and an intraperitoneal transgastric approach. Our group experienced three successful cases of

enhanced CT at determining T stage (John et al., 1999; Doran et al., 2004).

malignancies (Michl et al., 2006).

sepsis control (Garden, 2005).

**4. Laparoscopic application to pancreatitis** 

an organizing pseudocyst, or related complications.

#### **2.3 Other miscellaneous pancreatectomy and palliative procedures**

Enucleation is one of commonly conducted procedures of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. According to a review by Tagaya et al (Tagaya et al., 2003), laparoscopic enucleation has been used to treat relatively small benign or low grade malignancies, and tumors located on the surface of the pancreas remote from the pancreatic duct. Tumor location is an important factor for successful laparoscopic enucleation to avoid pancreatic duct injury, and some advocate that enucleation is a safe and simple procedure under laparoscopic ultrasonographic guidance (Matsumoto et al., 1999).

The enucleation offers the possibility of complete tumor removal without loss of pancreatic parenchyma, possible diabetes, and splenectomy in some endocrine tumor or pancreatic cystic neoplasm. However, enucleation seems to be a debatable procedure in patients with pancreas cystic tumors, and does not address the malignant potential of these tumors, and thus, should be used cautiously in selected cases to avoid inadequate safe surgical margins and rupture (Fernandez-Cruz et al., 2005). In addition, the incidence of pancreatic fistula after tumor enucleation has been reported to be 30% to 75%, which is relatively higher than that of conventional pancreatectomy (Pyke et al., 1992; Talamini et al., 1998; Iihara et al., 2001). Moreover, considerations of oncological and operational safety require that surgeons exercise caution when selecting indications for laparoscopic enucleation.

Some surgeons have developed more intricate procedures like laparoscopic central pancreatectomy and ventral pancreatectomy (Orsenigo et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2011; Giulianotti et al., 2010).

Laparoscopy may be used in a palliative context for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic/periampullary cancers. Many patients with periampullary cancer have symptoms associated with biliary or gastric outlet obstruction, and traditionally these patients have been managed by open bypass surgery. Recently, minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches to gastric and biliary bypass have been successfully applied, and have been shown by non-randomized comparative studies to be safer and to be associated with reduced periods of hospitalization than open surgery (Schwarz & Beger, 2000; Bergamaschi et al., 1998; Rothlin et al., 1999; Rhodes et al., 1995).

Although endoscopic or radiologic procedures for palliative treatment have been enormously developed and have achieved early success rates for endoscopic stent which is comparable to those of surgery with reduced morbidity and hospital stays, the long-term results of endoscopic procedures are not as satisfactory (van den Bosch et al., 1994). Thus, randomized comparisons of laparoscopic biliary bypass and interventional biliary stents in unresectable periampullary cancer are needed.

#### **3. Laparoscopic diagnosis/staging**

Laparoscopic diagnosis and staging are controversial in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Its main role is to detect occult intra-abdominal metastatic disease, during the procedure any suspicious lesion can be biopsied and peritoneal cytology can also be obtained by instilling normal saline into the peritoneum (Michl et al., 2006; Merchant et al., 1999; Nieveen van Dijkum et al., 1999).

Enucleation is one of commonly conducted procedures of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. According to a review by Tagaya et al (Tagaya et al., 2003), laparoscopic enucleation has been used to treat relatively small benign or low grade malignancies, and tumors located on the surface of the pancreas remote from the pancreatic duct. Tumor location is an important factor for successful laparoscopic enucleation to avoid pancreatic duct injury, and some advocate that enucleation is a safe and simple procedure under laparoscopic

The enucleation offers the possibility of complete tumor removal without loss of pancreatic parenchyma, possible diabetes, and splenectomy in some endocrine tumor or pancreatic cystic neoplasm. However, enucleation seems to be a debatable procedure in patients with pancreas cystic tumors, and does not address the malignant potential of these tumors, and thus, should be used cautiously in selected cases to avoid inadequate safe surgical margins and rupture (Fernandez-Cruz et al., 2005). In addition, the incidence of pancreatic fistula after tumor enucleation has been reported to be 30% to 75%, which is relatively higher than that of conventional pancreatectomy (Pyke et al., 1992; Talamini et al., 1998; Iihara et al., 2001). Moreover, considerations of oncological and operational safety require that surgeons

Some surgeons have developed more intricate procedures like laparoscopic central pancreatectomy and ventral pancreatectomy (Orsenigo et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2011;

Laparoscopy may be used in a palliative context for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic/periampullary cancers. Many patients with periampullary cancer have symptoms associated with biliary or gastric outlet obstruction, and traditionally these patients have been managed by open bypass surgery. Recently, minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches to gastric and biliary bypass have been successfully applied, and have been shown by non-randomized comparative studies to be safer and to be associated with reduced periods of hospitalization than open surgery (Schwarz & Beger, 2000;

Although endoscopic or radiologic procedures for palliative treatment have been enormously developed and have achieved early success rates for endoscopic stent which is comparable to those of surgery with reduced morbidity and hospital stays, the long-term results of endoscopic procedures are not as satisfactory (van den Bosch et al., 1994). Thus, randomized comparisons of laparoscopic biliary bypass and interventional biliary stents in

Laparoscopic diagnosis and staging are controversial in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Its main role is to detect occult intra-abdominal metastatic disease, during the procedure any suspicious lesion can be biopsied and peritoneal cytology can also be obtained by instilling normal saline into the peritoneum (Michl et al., 2006; Merchant et al.,

**2.3 Other miscellaneous pancreatectomy and palliative procedures** 

exercise caution when selecting indications for laparoscopic enucleation.

Bergamaschi et al., 1998; Rothlin et al., 1999; Rhodes et al., 1995).

unresectable periampullary cancer are needed.

**3. Laparoscopic diagnosis/staging** 

1999; Nieveen van Dijkum et al., 1999).

ultrasonographic guidance (Matsumoto et al., 1999).

Giulianotti et al., 2010).

The yield of laparoscopy for the detection of metastatic disease, especially of small peritoneal lesions that have not been detected by imaging modalities, ranges from 15 to 46% (Jimenez et al., 2000; Menack et al., 2001; Minnard et al., 1998; Velasco et al., 1998; Liu & Traverso, 2005). Recent studies have shown lower yields for laparoscopy than for improved non invasive imaging modalities like multi detector CT. The yield of laparoscopy alone is clearly impaired by its inability to detect locally advanced or intra-parenchymal liver disease. To overcome this obvious limitation, laparoscopic ultrasound has been added to laparoscopic staging, and this leads to a marked increase in yield and accuracy (Dulucq et al., 2006). Studies comparing laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound with radiological staging modalities have produced controversial results. However, several studies have found that laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound are more accurate than contrastenhanced CT at determining T stage (John et al., 1999; Doran et al., 2004).

In contrast, three large studies using contrast-enhanced multi-detector CT imaging as a baseline radiological investigation were unable to confirm this, and found yields as low as 10-15% and accuracies of 35-56% for laparoscopy (Nieveen van Dijkum et al., 2003; Brooks et al., 2002). Despite the use of a pre-operative staging algorithm including laparoscopic ultrasound, up to 20% of patients were still found to be unresectable at the time of laparotomy, mainly because of local invasion (Talamini et al., 1998). Moreover, as diagnostic yields have fallen, due to improvements in non-invasive imaging, the additional costs of laparoscopy have been called into question, particularly since it requires separate anesthesia. Thus, at present, laparoscopy has a limited role in the staging of peri-pancreatic malignancies (Michl et al., 2006).

#### **4. Laparoscopic application to pancreatitis**

The role of surgery in the management of acute pancreatitis is markedly being reduced because less invasive intervention and intensive medical care are evolving. Although some clinicians advocate a non surgical approach even in cases of infected necrotizing pancreatitis, due to the improved results of medical or interventional treatment (Chang et al., 2006), current indications for surgery in pancreatitis are infected necrotizing pancreatitis, an organizing pseudocyst, or related complications.

The treatment of infected necrosis has changed dramatically during the last few years, and a multimodality approach has emerged, where a combination of several techniques are used in a single patient, and the risks of intervention are weighed against the need for adequate sepsis control (Garden, 2005).

Minimally invasive surgery has consistently been shown to be associated with reduced inflammatory response activation than equivalent open surgery, and some evidence suggests that local sepsis and inflammatory response may also be lessened by minimally invasive surgery. It has been suggested that by minimizing the massive inflammatory injury associated with open pancreatic necrosectomy, a minimally invasive approach to the management of infected pancreatic necrosis may lessen the risk of multiple organ failure, and reduce respiratory and wound morbidity in necrotizing pancreatitis (Garden, 2005; Parekh, 2006).

The laparoscopic approach depends on the localization of pancreatic necrosis. The alternatives are an intraperitoneal approach, direct entry of the retroperitoneal space, and an intraperitoneal transgastric approach. Our group experienced three successful cases of

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 37

(A) CT shows severe necrosis around pancreas.

endoscopically or surgically (Ammori & Baghdadi, 2006).

laparoscopic approach.

al., 2000).

(B) Necrosis was laparoscopically approached and debrided using gauze and forceps. (C) Postoperative CT shows marked decrease of necrotic area around pancreas.

Fig. 2. A 38 year old man, with severe necrotizing pancreatitis, was successfully managed by

The management of pancreatic pseudocyst, complicated (acute or chronic) pancreatitis represents another important role of laparoscopy in pancreatitis. Pseudocysts complicate 5- 10% of acute pancreatitis attacks and often arise as a result of disruption of the pancreatic duct in the presence of gland necrosis. Large (≥6cm diameter), persistent (≥6 weeks), and symptomatic pseudocysts are indications for drainage, which is best achieved

Endoscopic transmural (transgastric or transduodenal) drainage may be possible in some patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, and is best reserved for pseudocysts that complicate chronic pancreatitis (rather than acute pancreatitis) in the head or body of the pancreas, and those with a wall thickness of less than 1cm (Beckingham et al., 1999). Surgery remains the gold standard for the management of large, persistent and recurrent pseudocysts. Internal drainage is conventionally achieved through a pseudocyst-gastrostomy or pseudocystjejunostomy, procedures that are now safely and effectively accomplished laparoscopically (Weber et al., 2009). Transgastric (via anterior gastrostomy) (Smadja et al., 1999), endogastric (Mori et al., 2000; Ammori et al., 2002), a posterior approach through the lesser sac, and Roux-en-Y pseudocyst-jejunostomy have been described (Hagopian et al., 2000). Although reported cases of laparoscopic management of pseudocysts are limited, the data presented are promising, and support the advantages of a relatively short postoperative hospital stay and rapid recovery (Smadja et al., 1999; Mori et al., 2000; Ammori et al., 2002; Hagopian et

Because no randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic, open approaches and endoscopic procedures in terms of the internal drainage of pseudocysts, it is impossible

laparoscopic necrosectomy using a multiple approach technique for necrotizing pancreatitis (Figure 2). The potential benefits of minimal invasive techniques are yet to be proven, because of a rarity of reports that deal with severely ill patients, and thus, the superiority or inferiority of laparoscopic over endoscopic or radiologic intervention must be proven by randomized prospective study.

laparoscopic necrosectomy using a multiple approach technique for necrotizing pancreatitis (Figure 2). The potential benefits of minimal invasive techniques are yet to be proven, because of a rarity of reports that deal with severely ill patients, and thus, the superiority or inferiority of laparoscopic over endoscopic or radiologic intervention must be proven by

randomized prospective study.

(A) CT shows severe necrosis around pancreas.

(B) Necrosis was laparoscopically approached and debrided using gauze and forceps.

(C) Postoperative CT shows marked decrease of necrotic area around pancreas.

Fig. 2. A 38 year old man, with severe necrotizing pancreatitis, was successfully managed by laparoscopic approach.

The management of pancreatic pseudocyst, complicated (acute or chronic) pancreatitis represents another important role of laparoscopy in pancreatitis. Pseudocysts complicate 5- 10% of acute pancreatitis attacks and often arise as a result of disruption of the pancreatic duct in the presence of gland necrosis. Large (≥6cm diameter), persistent (≥6 weeks), and symptomatic pseudocysts are indications for drainage, which is best achieved endoscopically or surgically (Ammori & Baghdadi, 2006).

Endoscopic transmural (transgastric or transduodenal) drainage may be possible in some patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, and is best reserved for pseudocysts that complicate chronic pancreatitis (rather than acute pancreatitis) in the head or body of the pancreas, and those with a wall thickness of less than 1cm (Beckingham et al., 1999). Surgery remains the gold standard for the management of large, persistent and recurrent pseudocysts. Internal drainage is conventionally achieved through a pseudocyst-gastrostomy or pseudocystjejunostomy, procedures that are now safely and effectively accomplished laparoscopically (Weber et al., 2009). Transgastric (via anterior gastrostomy) (Smadja et al., 1999), endogastric (Mori et al., 2000; Ammori et al., 2002), a posterior approach through the lesser sac, and Roux-en-Y pseudocyst-jejunostomy have been described (Hagopian et al., 2000). Although reported cases of laparoscopic management of pseudocysts are limited, the data presented are promising, and support the advantages of a relatively short postoperative hospital stay and rapid recovery (Smadja et al., 1999; Mori et al., 2000; Ammori et al., 2002; Hagopian et al., 2000).

Because no randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic, open approaches and endoscopic procedures in terms of the internal drainage of pseudocysts, it is impossible

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 39

Cuschieri A. (1996). Laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Semin Laparosc Surg, Vol.3, No.1,

DiNorcia J, Schrope BA, Lee MK, et al. (2010). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy offers

Doran HE, Bosonnet L, Connor S, et al. (2004). Laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound in

Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A. (2006). Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and malignant diseases. Surg Endosc, Vol.20, No.7, pp. 1045–50. Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Feryn T, Perissat J, Mahajna A. (2005). Are major

Eom BW, Jang JY, Lee SE, et al. (2008). Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc, Vol.22, No.5, pp. 1334-8. Fernandez-Cruz L, Cesar-Borges G, Lopez-Boado MA, Orduna D, Navarro S. (2005).

Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L, et al. (2007). Curative laparoscopic resection for

Gagner M, Gentileschi P. (2001). Hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic resection. Semin

Gagner M, Pomp A. (1994). Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg

Gagner M, Pomp A. (1997). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J

Garden OJ. (2005). A companion to specialist surgical practice; Hepatobiliary and pancreatic

Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Addeo P, Caravaglios G. (2010). Robot-assisted

Hagopian EJ, Texeira JA, Smith M, Steichen FM. (2000). Pancreatic pseudocyst treated by

Horiguchi A, Uyama I, Ito M, et al. (2011). Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. J

Iihara M, Kanbe M, Okamoto T, Ito Y, Obara T. (2001). Laparoscopic ultrasonography for

Jang JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Kim SW. (2007). Present status of laparoscopic pancreatic

Jayaraman S, Gonen M, Brennan MF, D'Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, JarnaginWR,

Jimenez RE, Warshaw AL, Rattner DW et al. (2000). Impact of laparoscopic staging in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Arch Surg, Vol.135, No.4, pp. 409–14.

Allen PJ. (2010). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a

laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, Vol.20,

laparoscopic Roux- en-Y cystojejunostomy. Report of a case and review of the

in a single institution. Surg Endosc, Vol.19, No.8, pp. 1028-34.

shorter hospital stays with fewer complications. J Gastrointest Surg, Vol.14, No.11,

the evaluation of pancreatic and periampullary tumours. Dig Surg, Vol.21, No.4,

laparoscopic pancreatic resections worthwhile? A prospective study of 32 patients

Minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas in progress. Langenbecks Arch Surg,

pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest

pp. 15–20.

pp. 1804-12.

pp. 305–13.

Vol.390, No.4, pp. 342–54.

Surg, Vol.11, No.12, pp. 1607–21.

Endosc, Vol.8, No.5, pp. 408–10.

surgery. 3rd ed. Elsevier;.

No.2, pp. 135-9.

Laparosc Surg, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 114-25.

Gastrointest Surg, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 20–6.

literature. Surg Endosc, Vol.14, No.10, p. 967.

surgery. JIMSA, Vol.20, No.3, pp. 221-25.

Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, Vol.18, No.4, pp. 488-92.

resection of insulinomas. Surgery, Vol.130, No.6, pp. 1086-91.

single institution. J Am Coll Surg, Vol.211, No.4, pp. 503-9.

to clarify which provides the most effective treatment for patients with pseudocysts in different situations.

#### **5. Conclusion**

The anatomical complexity of the pancreas and high postoperative morbidity have hindered evaluations of laparoscopic surgery with respect to early functional recovery, and thus, have probably retarded the adoption of laparoscopic surgery for the management of pancreatic diseases. Nevertheless, recent reports on pancreatic laparoscopic surgery are encouraging and maintain consensus option concerning the merits of the technique.

Well selected cases of enucleation and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation are currently both acceptable and recommendable for the treatment of benign or low grade malignant diseases of pancreas. Most reports on advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy have concluded that these procedures are feasible and safe when conducted by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. However, technical feasibility does not obviate sound clinical judgment, and caution should be exercised before new technologies are adopted in the absence of well designed clinical trials (Werner et al., 2005).

Nevertheless many surgeons and the laparoscopic industries have developed new techniques and devices that are more convenient and increase the safety of laparoscopic surgery, and their efforts will undoubtedly increase the role of laparoscopic or minimal invasive surgery for the treatment of pancreatic disease.

#### **6. References**


to clarify which provides the most effective treatment for patients with pseudocysts in

The anatomical complexity of the pancreas and high postoperative morbidity have hindered evaluations of laparoscopic surgery with respect to early functional recovery, and thus, have probably retarded the adoption of laparoscopic surgery for the management of pancreatic diseases. Nevertheless, recent reports on pancreatic laparoscopic surgery are encouraging

Well selected cases of enucleation and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation are currently both acceptable and recommendable for the treatment of benign or low grade malignant diseases of pancreas. Most reports on advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy have concluded that these procedures are feasible and safe when conducted by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. However, technical feasibility does not obviate sound clinical judgment, and caution should be exercised before new technologies are adopted in

Nevertheless many surgeons and the laparoscopic industries have developed new techniques and devices that are more convenient and increase the safety of laparoscopic surgery, and their efforts will undoubtedly increase the role of laparoscopic or minimal

Ammori BJ, Baghdadi S. (2006). Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: the new frontier?

Ammori BJ, Bhattacharya D, Senapati PS. (2002). Laparoscopic endogastric pseudocyst

Beckingham IJ, Krige JE, Bornman PC, Terblanche J. (1999). Long term outcome of

Bergamaschi R, Marvik R, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Johnsen G, Myrvold HE. (1998). Open

Brooks AD, Mallis MJ, Brennan MF, Conlon KC. (2002). The value of laparoscopy in the

Chang YC, Tsai HM, Lin XZ, Chang CH, Chuang JP. (2006). No debridement is necessary for

Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M, et al. (2009). Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open

gastrostomy: a report of three cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, Vol.12,

endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Am J Gastroenterol, Vol.94, No.1,

versus laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for palliation in advanced pancreatic cancer.

management of ampullary, duodenal, and distal bile duct tumors. J Gastrointest

symptomatic or infected acute necrotizing pancreatitis: delayed, miniretroperitoneal drainage for acute necrotizing pancreatitis without debridement

pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J

and maintain consensus option concerning the merits of the technique.

the absence of well designed clinical trials (Werner et al., 2005).

Curr Gastroenterol Rep, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 132-42.

Surg Laparosc Endosc, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 92-6.

and irrigation. Dig Dis Sci, Vol.51, No.8, pp. 1388-95.

Surg, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 139–145.

Surg, Vol.198, No.3, pp. 445–9.

invasive surgery for the treatment of pancreatic disease.

different situations.

**5. Conclusion** 

**6. References** 

No.6, pp. 437-40.

pp. 71-4.


Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery 41

Merchant NB, Conlon KC, Saigo P et al. (1999). Positive peritoneal cytology predicts

Michl P, Pauls S, Gress TM. (2006). Evidence-based diagnosis and staging of pancreatic

Minnard EA, Conlon KC, Hoos A et al. (1998). Laparoscopic ultrasound enhances standard

Misawa T, Shiba H, Usuba T, et al. (2007). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after

Mori T, Abe N, Sugiyama M, Atomi Y, Way LW. (2000). Laparoscopic pancreatic cystogastrostomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, Vol.7, No.1, pp.28-34. Mori T, Abe N, Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. (2005). Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. J

Nakamura Y, Uchida E, Aimoto T, et al. (2009). Clinical outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 35–41. Nieveen van Dijkum EJ, de Wit LT, van Delden OM et al. (1999). Staging laparoscopy and

Nieveen van Dijkum EJ, Romijn MG, Terwee CB et al. (2003). Laparoscopic staging and

Orsenigo E, Baccari P, Bissolotti G, Staudacher C. (2006). Laparoscopic central

Palanivelu C, Shetty R, Jani K, et al. (2007). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results of a

Parekh D. (2006). Laparoscopic-assisted pancreatic necrosectomy: A new surgical option for treatment of severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg, Vol.141, No.9, pp. 895-902.

Pugliese R, Scandroglio I, Sansonna F, et al. (2008). Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy:

Pyke CM, van Heerden JA, Colby TV, Sarr MG, Weaver AL. (1992). The spectrum of serous

Rhodes M, Nathanson L, Fielding G. (1995). Laparoscopic biliary and gastric bypass: a

Robey E, Mullen JT, Schwab CW. (1982). Blunt trisection of the pancreas treated by distal

Røsok BI, Marangos IP, Kazaryan AM, et al. (2010). Single-centre experience of laparoscopic

Rothlin MA, Schob O, Weber M. (1999). Laparoscopic gastro- and hepaticojejunostomy for

cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, Vol.20, No.2, pp. 227-51.

Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, Vol.12, No.6, pp. 451-5.

carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg, Vol.189, No.5, pp. 459–65.

pancreatectomy. Am J Surg, Vol.191, No.4, pp. 549-52.

the literature. Ann Surg, Vol.196, No.6, pp. 695-9.

pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg, Vol.97, No.6 , pp. 902-9.

421–6.

1446–9.

No.1, pp. 66–73.

No.3, pp. 373–7.

No.1, pp. 13–8.

778-80.

pp. 1065-9.

Vol.215, No.2, pp. 132–9.

unresectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg, Vol.188, No.4, pp.

laparoscopy in the staging of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg, Vol.228, No.2, pp. 182–7.

hand-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc, Vol.21, No.8, pp.

laparoscopic ultrasonography in more than 400 patients with upper gastrointestinal

subsequent palliation in patients with peripancreatic carcinoma. Ann Surg, Vol.237,

prospective non-randomized study from a tertiary center. Surg Endosc, Vol.21,

a retrospective review of 19 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, Vol.18,

cystadenoma of the pancreas. Clinical, pathologic, and surgical aspects. Ann Surg,

useful adjunct in the treatment of carcinoma of the pancreas. Gut, Vol.36, No.5, pp.

pancreatectomy, splenic salvage and hyperalimentation. Four cases and review of

palliation of pancreatic cancer: a case controlled study. Surg Endosc, Vol.13, No.11,


John TG, Wright A, Allan PL et al. (1999). Laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasonography

Kaneko H, Takagi S, Joubara N, et al. (2004). Laparoscopy-assisted spleen-preserving distal

Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. (2011). Initial experiences using robot-assisted central

Kooby D, Gillespie T, Bentrem DJ, et al. (2008). Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter

Kooby DA, Chu CK. (2010). Laparoscopic management of pancreatic malignancies. Surg

Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM, et al. (2010). A multicenter analysis of distal

Kubota K. (2011). Recent advances and limitations of surgical treatment for pancreatic

Liu RC, Traverso LW. (2005). Diagnostic laparoscopy improves staging of pancreatic cancer

Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, et al. (2005). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection:

Makary MA. (2011). The advent of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery using the robot. Arch

Matsumoto T, Kitano S, Yoshida T, et al. (1999). Laparoscopic resection of a pancreatic

Matsumoto T, Shibata K, Ohta M, et al. (2008). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open

Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, et al. (2007). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg, Vol.246, No.1, pp. 77–82. Menack MJ, Spitz JD, Arregui ME. (2001). Staging of pancreatic and ampullary cancers for

Mallet GP, Vachon A. (1943). Pancreatites chroniqes gauches. Paris: Masson,.

laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 1101-6. Kendrick ML, Cusati D. (2010). Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg, Vol.145, No.1, pp. 19-23. Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, et al. (2008). Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for

single institution. Surg Endosc, Vol.22, No.10, pp. 2261–8.

Pancreat Surg, Vol.11, No.6, pp. 397-401.

Clin North Am, Vol.90, No.2, pp. 427-46.

cancer. World J Clin Oncol, Vol.2, No.5, pp. 225-8.

Coll Surg, Vol.210, No.5, pp. 779-87.

Surg, Vol.146, No.3, pp. 261-2.

Percutan Tech, Vol.18, No.4, pp. 340–3.

Vol.13, No.2, pp. 172–3.

No.10, pp. 1129–34.

81.

438–46.

pp. 638–42.

597–605.

in the TNM staging of pancreatic carcinoma. World J Surg, Vol.23, No.9, pp. 870–

pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. J Hepatobiliary

pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced

laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a

comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg, Vol.248, No.3, pp.

pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am

deemed locally unresectable by computed tomography. Surg Endosc, Vol.19, No.5,

results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery, Vol.137, No.6, pp.

mucinous cystadenoma using laparoscopic coagulating shears. Surg Endosc,

distal pancreatectomy: a nonrandomized comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc

resectability using laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound. Surg Endosc, Vol.15,


**4** 

*Australia* 

**Laparoscopy in Trauma Patients** 

The burden of major trauma, predominantly blunt in nature, continues to rise in most countries. More often the young are affected with lifelong debilitating consequences. Minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic procedures, have become standard for the treatment of many surgical conditions, being able to minimize the impact of surgery, to reduce postoperative pain, time in hospital, time to recover, and to improve cosmetic

The use of laparoscopy as an aid in the diagnosis of abdominal trauma was first described in 1977 (Simon, Gazzaniga, Carnevale). In 1988 Cuschieri compared diagnostic peritoneal lavage with a laparoscopy (using a 4-mm scope) in blunt abdominal trauma patients demonstrating that laparoscopy carried a higher positive predictive value when compared to diagnostic peritoneal lavage (Cuschieri). Since then, the use of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma has increased exponentially. In trauma patients laparoscopy may avoid unnecessary (non-therapeutic) laparotomy, may improve operative visualisation of diaphragm, and may

Despite these clear potentialities, laparoscopy has not yet gained wide acceptation and it is

1. In bleeding, or potentially bleeding patients, timing is of essence. The logistics for laparoscopy set up of theatre still takes longer than for open surgery. Once the operation has started it takes longer to gain access, identify the bleeder and, especially,

2. In haemodynamically normal patients with spleen injuries a diagnostic laparoscopy

3. The risk of missing injuries (hollow viscus mainly) is high. A literature review reports a 41% to 77% rate of missed injuries when used as a diagnostic tool to perform abdominal exploration (Villavicencio). This is very much operator dependent, but it may carry

4. Logistics wise most trauma happens at night when staff may be less motivated to

not consistently performed in trauma patients. There are several reasons for this.

**1. Introduction** 

outcomes.

allow laparoscopic repair of these injuries.

may increase the splenectomy rate.

embark in a time consuming procedure.

disastrous outcomes.

control it when compared to a trauma laparotomy.

Cino Bendinelli1 and Zsolt J. Balogh1,2 *1John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW,* 

*2University of Newcastle, NSW,* 

