The São Paulo International Consensus on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery for Cancer

5Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Although minimally invasive surgery is widely accepted across surgical disciplines, its role in pancreatic cancer continues to be debated. The objective of the São Paulo Consensus on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (MIPS) was to establish consensus statements on the use of MIPS for pancreatic cancer, integrating contemporary evidence and recent advances. Methods: A scoping literature review informed statement development across five thematic groups: (1) Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer, (2) Pancreatoduodenectomy and Total Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer, (3) Neuroendocrine Pancreatic Tumors, (4) Patient Evaluation and Surgical Technique, and (5) Implementation, Training, and Innovation. A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted with an international panel of 52 expert pancreas surgeons. Consensus was defined as ≥90 % agreement. Results: From 2590 publications, 185 studies were selected for inclusion. Fifty-two hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons, with a median of 22 years of experience, achieved consensus through a three-round Delphi process. Ultimately, 22 of the initial 28 statements met the ≥90 % agreement threshold. The resulting recommendations provide evidence-based guidance on minimally invasive pancreas resection for cancer, including neuroendocrine tumors, patient evaluation, program implementation, and innovation. Discussion: The São Paulo Consensus provides contemporary, evidence-based recommendations to guide the safe and judicious adoption, implementation, and practice of minimally invasive techniques.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tustumi, F., Calthorpe, L., Fotoohi, N., Ribeiro, T. C., Stolzemburg, L. C. P., Bettiati Junior, A. L., … Coimbra, F. J. F. (2026). The São Paulo International Consensus on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery for Cancer. HPB, 28(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2025.11.012

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free