Background: Pancreatic cancer has a high mortality rate worldwide. Most patients progress to advanced stages, often with metastasis, resulting in a low survival rate. Despite advancements in surgical and oncological treatments, early diagnosis and better risk stratification remain critical. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study focused on analyzing data from patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, in order to determine whether the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and other immune–inflammatory markers, such as the systemic immune–inflammation index (SII) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI), can predict postoperative complications and survival outcomes. Results: Analysis of 136 patients revealed that a higher NLR (≥2.5) was significantly associated with longer overall survival (39 months, IQR: 17–100 months; p = 0.004), compared to lower NLR (<2.5; 18 months, IQR: 9–39 months). Higher SII (≥600) was also associated with significantly improved survival (34 months, IQR: 17–114 months; p = 0.001) compared to lower SII (<600; 20 months, IQR: 9–45 months). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications or other clinical outcomes between NLR groups, although a trend toward more complications in the higher NLR group was noted (p = 0.06). PNI showed no significant impact on survival (PNI < 38.8: 22 months, IQR: 14–60 months; PNI ≥ 38.8: 33 months, IQR: 14–115 months; p = 0.1) or complications (p = 0.8). Conclusions: Our study highlights the prognostic utility of NLR and SII in patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Regarding complications, there were no significant differences across groups stratified by NLR, SII, or PNI, suggesting that while NLR and SII are valuable for predicting long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas, they may not be reliable indicators of immediate postoperative morbidity.

Background: While there is an abundance of comparative studies on open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomies (RDPs) available in the literature, direct comparisons between RDP and hand-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (HALDP) are limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RDPs in comparison to HALDPs in the treatment of pancreatic lesions. Methods: This study reviewed 97 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy at Carmel Medical Center between 2008 and 2024. After excluding 40 patients (24 open and 16 pure laparoscopic resections), the final cohort comprised 57 patients: 20 RDPs and 37 HALDPs. The primary outcomes included peri-operative parameters, while secondary outcomes encompassed 90-day morbidity and mortality. Results: RDPs led to significantly longer operative times (3.9 vs. 2.5 h, p < 0.001) but resulted in shorter hospital stays (4.7 vs. 5.8 days, p = 0.02) and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (11 vs. 5.4, p = 0.01). While clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were numerically higher in the RDP group (35% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.18), this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, complication rates were comparable (55% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.39). Severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIa) was absent in the RDP group compared to 8% in the HALDP group (p = 0.04). No 90-day mortality was observed in either group. Conclusions: This study indicates that although RDP involves longer operative times, it may provide certain advantages for patients, such as shorter hospital stays, better lymph node retrieval, and a notable decrease in postoperative morbidity when compared to HALDP. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these results and to determine the most effective surgical approach for distal pancreatectomy.